September 2003 posts
The
legend of the Slayer -- HonorH, 17:41:15 09/14/03 Sun
This is just delightful:
"Legend"
by Marcus Rowland
[> Thanks, HonorH -- very
interesting -- LadyStarlight, 18:34:16 09/14/03 Sun
[> Very Cool. Thanks!
-- Just George, 20:25:08 09/14/03 Sun
[> [> Re: A Total Hoot!
-- Brian, 05:55:44 09/15/03 Mon
[> Very interesting, HonorH.
Buffy endures. Buffy WILL endure. But why? -- cjl, 08:15:51
09/15/03 Mon
[> Re: The legend of the
Slayer -- MaeveRigan, 08:17:38 09/15/03 Mon
You have excellent taste, HonorH.
Reminds me of the 4.22 "Deconstruction of Falling Stars"
episode of Babylon 5.
[> another one -- lakrids,
08:48:49 09/15/03 Mon
In the somewhat same genre are also
Critical Review
by Aadler
http://aadler.iwarp.com/cr01.htm
[> That was very cool.
-- Rob, 08:56:15 09/15/03 Mon
The structure reminded me a great deal of Stephen King's Carrie
(the novel, not the movie), which is composed of "interviews,"
"quotes" from "actual" texts about the "true"
incident at the prom, news articles, etc. We don't go forward
in time quite as drastically in that novel, though, as we do in
this story. ;o)
Rob
Darla vs Drusilla
-- JBone,
20:11:18 09/14/03 Sun
Grandmother is very pleased with it. I can tell. Aren't you Grandmother?
http://www.geocities.com/road2apocalypse/showtime.html
It's the final week of Round 2, and then there will be only 16
left in the Apocalypse. I finally have the Sweet 16 page linked
up to the Region pages. If you haven't checked it out yet, you
can find it here.
The Fellowship of the Tiebreaker this week are d'Herblay, MaeveRigan
and deeva. Maybe we'll get to see the team in action.
Post comments here, at the voting site or email me.
[> Re: Darla vs Drusilla
-- Apophis, 00:23:14 09/15/03 Mon
I went with Dru, as it is my policy to support the mentally disturbed.
I say Dru makes illusions of all of Darla's incarnations and the
real Darla snaps from the confusion. Then, she and Dru go off
to fingerpaint kittens in blood and name stars. It's all very
romantic if you think about it.
[> Re: Darla vs Drusilla
-- Celebaelin, 05:51:58 09/15/03 Mon
I think Dru has this one, I don't care what the numbers say being
killed so many times has got to take the edge off your game. Suicides
are not generally renowned for their gritty determination will
to win. To mix my metaphors a little 'Cassie doesn't have any
bad dreams because she's just a doll'.
[> Grandmother is cross.
-- cjl, 07:35:53 09/15/03 Mon
Watched "Dear Boy" through "Redefinition"
this weekend (soooooo much fun!), and I noticed an essential but
rarely mentioned aspect of the Fanged Four dynamic: Drusilla irritated
Darla no end. Dru was Angelus' pet project, and while Angelus
just adored sexy, wacky Dru (in that sick, sick, SICK! way of
his), I think Vision Girl Mark I sucked on Darla's last nerve.
(No wonder she wanted Dru to make herself a playmate.) Darla would
never stake Dru, because she respected Dru's "sight"
and utter viciousness--and let's face it, sometimes it's just
nice to have another girl around for company. (Shopping, anyone?)
But if it came down to Darla vs. Dru for keeps (the catfight in
Reunion doesn't count), I think Darla would win. Dru may be insane,
but Darla is hardcore.
[> [> Very true.
-- Arethusa, 08:27:24 09/15/03 Mon
Yeah, Darla'd wipe the floor with Dru.
Dru's the puppy they got to amuse Angelus, and Spike's the puppy
they got to amuse Dru. (Angelus' attachment to Dru is vital to
his self-image. He needs to have a victim to maintain feelings
of power and control, over his relationships specifically and
unlife in general.)
[> Re: Darla vs Drusilla
-- MaeveRigan, 08:21:54 09/15/03 Mon
Dru is insane, which is why Darla is going to win. Darla
can be single-minded, or easily distracted. Darla has years of
experience over Drusilla, and she's just more devoted to all-out
evil. She'll drop Drusilla in a non-existent heartbeat and enjoy
every minute of it.
[> Tha Master's Favored
One vs. The Demented Princess -- deeva, 10:13:45 09/15/03
Mon
"She's my grandmum! Slap!! She's my daughter! Slap!!"
Sure Dru has the major advantage of being crazy and deranged but
Darla's calculating ways are what will win the day.
[> Talk about a tough choice!
-- Scroll, 13:20:04 09/15/03 Mon
I love them both so much! Why must we choose between our two ladies
of the night? Double the vampires, double the fun!
But since I love the Madame just a little bit more than Daddy's
Little Girl, I had to vote for Darla, Mother of Connor.
[> [> You go, Scroll!
-- Masq, 13:33:05 09/15/03 Mon
Some of the best scenes in AtS featured Darla as mother/mentor:
Darla and Drusilla
Darla and Angel(us)
Darla and Connor
Gotta vote for the mama of my favorite boys.
But here's hoping we get a little more Drusilla this coming season!
[> [> [> The Darla/Drusilla
dynamic -- cjl, 13:45:17 09/15/03 Mon
Stepping outside the contest for a minute....
While I was watching "Redefinition," I finally realized
why I love the episode so much--it's the Darla/Drusilla dynamic.
They're brutal and unbelievably dangerous, but they're (literally)
as funny as Hell. Darla is trying to be a deadly serious, grim-faced
vampire lord, while Dru is fluttering and swaying in the background,
undercutting her professional image:
DARLA: I'm a mean, vicious, angry vampire and I will rule this
city and feed on the flesh of the helpless mortals!
DRU (swaying drowsily in the background): Woooooooooo! Babble
babble lalalalalalalala..........
DARLA: Will you PLEASE shut up?!
The Darla/Dru/Lindsey/Lilah scene at W&H is an all-time classic.
Darla cruelly teases Lindsey, and the girls all share a laugh--until
Darla snaps at Lilah to shut up (and she does).
I want to see more Dru AND Darla in ANGEL S5. (Of course they
can bring Darla back! Don't they always?)
[> [> [> [> They
gotta bring Darla back -- Masq, 13:47:30 09/15/03 Mon
So she can put Lilah in her place again....
That was yummy!
[> [> [> [> Missing
the point of the dynamic... -- KdS, 14:34:18 09/15/03 Mon
Dru predicts everything in the rest of the ep, and possibly hints
at the future plot trajectory (maybe all that stuff about Angel
as "Daddy" wasn't just incest jokes), but Darla ignores
her perceptions as mere lunatic babbling. Bad move.
[> [> [> [> [>
Makes the ep even funnier. -- cjl, 14:44:41 09/15/03
Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
Actually, KdS makes a good point here. (A look into Darla's
psychology.) -- cjl, 17:22:55 09/15/03 Mon
Upon further examination, perhaps Darla didn't respect Dru's "second
sight" at all.
For a woman who was converted to the ranks of the undead by a
centuries-old master vampire and rescued from Hell by black magic,
Darla seemed peculiarly resistant to visions and other intrusions
upon Earthly life from higher powers. As a whore on the streets
of colonial Virginia, struck down by syphillis, she never trusted
in God to help her along in life and unlife. Therefore, she liked
holding the reins of power in her own two hot little hands. (She
was the only vampire in the history of Buffydom who thought guns
might be a practical way of killing a Slayer.)
She was barely tolerant of Dru's visionary babblings during the
Fanged Four days because Dru was Angelus' pet project, and because
Spike was a probably a helpful intermediary, giving Dru's ravings
interpretive context. Without the boys as go-betweens, Darla's
hard-nosed practicality didn't quite mesh with Dru's ten-seconds-ahead-of-the-game
dialogue, and the girls got burned. Literally.
Interesting....
[> [> [> [> [>
[> so...would that make it a tie? -- anom, 20:06:40
09/15/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> It means Angel would beat either Darla or Dru--and
probably both. -- cjl (making a regional semifinals prediction),
22:24:14 09/15/03 Mon
[> I vote for the Trollop,
cause I can't be the only one bringing the fun in.....;) --
Rufus, 16:05:58 09/15/03 Mon
[> Oooo, this one is a nail-biter!
-- deeva, 16:35:01 09/15/03 Mon
[> [> Darla's opened
a (very) small lead with a little over an hour to go -- Jay,
18:30:29 09/15/03 Mon
Classic Movie
of the Week - September 14th 2003 -- OnM, 21:10:15 09/14/03
Sun
*******
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose.
............ Kris Kristofferson
*******
I was born just out of town / and I never could get in
So I turned to traveling 'round / where the nights fade and the
days begin
They called me a hobo / but I never took that name
And they called me a pilgrim / but I was not to blame
As I wandered through the tall pines and the clay / trying to
put a hurry-up on Judgment Day
They jailed me in St. Louis / 'cause I was easy prey
And everyone was happy / to go home early that day
Till it was just me and my cellmate / staring eye to eye
And then he started laughing, saying, / "Let me guess, you're
not the guy."
He offered me a cigarette / As I reached he pulled away
Saying, "You never get a last request / until it's Judgment
Day."
Her eyes they were flawed diamonds / She said, "That's the
price of fame
Where all the girls are beautiful / All the women look the same
And all the men come courting me / because I'm the final one
And they give their names so quietly / just like you might've
done
And names are just the final thing / a man must give away
And you'll pass yours on so willingly / when it comes Judgment
Day"
Well, I heard her sing a melody / from a window in the jail
And I knew the day I broke out / she'd cover up my trail
Expecting nothing more / than the name I tried to toss
Staring into my heart with the eyes / of St. John of the Cross
Wondering if I'd return again / but it don't work out that way
Once you've turned your back and the rope goes slack / around
Judgment Day
It was long out on the Great Plains / with nowhere left to go
The road was full of nothing / and the sky was full of snow
I've seen this road before / in the sun and rain and wind
But I don't need it anymore / Let that be my only sin
For whatever the next motel costs / I'll be glad to pay
And I'll hide out till I hear that song / that calls me Judgment
Day
............ Bill Morrissey
*******
When the sun come shining, then I was strolling
In wheat fields waving and dust clouds rolling;
The voice was chanting as the fog was lifting:
This land was made for you and me
One bright sunny morning in the shadow of the steeple
By the Relief Office I saw my people
As they stood hungry, I stood there wondering if
This land was made for you and me
............ Woody Guthrie
*******
My dad's dog lived to a very respectable age for a dog, which
was a very fortunate occurrence because after my
mother passed away, I'm not sure dad would have made it for another
decade-plus without some kind of close
companionship.
Oh, he arranged to sell their tiny home and moved in with my sister
and her family just a few months after the
funeral, because even though he was retired from his dreary job
at the watch factory for quite some time, he
couldn't stand coming home to the empty house whenever he left
it, and for that matter couldn't really stand to
stay in it either. Damned if you do, and you're lonely no matter
what.
This wasn't an easy time for my sister either, as she was already
a caretaker for her husband's elderly mother.
Even though dad was pretty self-sufficient and in reasonably good
health for a man in his eighth decade, the
problem was he didn't have anything to keep his interest and fill
the space of time before him. He had few
hobbies even when he was much younger, and they no longer seemed
of value to him. Whenever I'd ask, the
response was always "It's the money-- I can't afford it."
There was a modest bit of truth to that, since his social
security payments were providing a pretty minimal level of financial
wherewithal, and his pension income was a
joke-- the company where he spent nearly 50 years of his life
toiling away to take care of his family tried to screw
him and hundreds of other workers when there was a change of ownership,
and the new owners busily went
looking for ways to cut costs. The pension fund was a prime target,
and after years of legal wrangling the
company finally settled with the union, but the workers' pensions
were still reduced, just not as much as the
company had originally wanted.
My sister and I both offered to chip in to help him do what ever
he wanted to do, but he'd never take the extra
money-- "Oh, I can't take money from my kids! That wouldn't
be right!" We could never figure out why that
'wouldn't have been right', after all, he didn't raise us for
free, now did he? But be it pride or shame or whatever
his internal logic said to him, we gave up after a while. Dad
was dad, and he wasn't going to change, so in the end
we were truly grateful for the dog.
The dog just happened one day. My father had never owned a dog,
or any other pet as far as I know, even in his
youth. I was always surprised at this, since it's virtually in
the Constitution that kids shall have pets, even if only a
goldfish or a hamster or something. People in general seem to
love having companion animals around themselves,
and depending whether you're a 'dog person' or a 'cat person',
one or more of those critters will likely be a
constant presence in your child's life. Dad always said he was
never interested, but the truth was reputed to be
that his mother didn't want animals around the house because they
were dirty or annoying or expensive to feed or
somesuch. This was in the 1920's, and they lived in the city,
not the country, so I'm not going to pass any
judgement. My father's parents never owned their own home, so
perhaps the landlords didn't permit it, and that
was simply that.
Besides, why would he need a pet when his kids always had them?
We had fish, and turtles, and rabbits, and
ducks and chicks that they sold in the Farmer's Market every Easter.
We lived in the city, but dad's hard work
back during the times when the watchmaking business was still
good meant that he earned enough money to
move out of an apartment and into a house, and the house had a
great big back yard for beasties to romp and/or
swim in. One day my sister brought home a kitten, and there was
great uncertainty and more than a little
trepidation that its furry little self could trigger my allergies,
a non-trivial event since I had a history of severe
asthma attacks, usually set off by plant pollen or other normally
innocuous things.
Fortunately, I was getting older, and the attacks were much less
frequent than they were several years before,
and besides, it was just so damn cute there on the living room
rug, playing with a ball of string, ya know? Tom
lived with us for a good 7 or 8 years, and when he finally made
his way to the feline Elysian Fields, we all felt that
one of the world's great cats had gone. I know, I know-- 'Tom'
is a really ordinary and even possibly
stereotypical cat name. Today, I'd probably suggest 'Bill' or
'Top', but when you're a kid your companions
don't require irony. Hell, we named , our pet goose (Tom's predecessor)
'Bobby'. Later on it turned out to be a
female (the eggs were a givaway there), but 'Roberta' just seemed
way too formal for this particular goose, so it
stayed Bobby until the day she died.)
Oh yeah, back to the dog. The dog, as I said, just happened one
day. My parents has stopped by a mini-market
down in my sister's neck of the woods, and here was this cute
puppy hanging around outside the building, no
collar, looking stray-like and all. People came and went from
the store, but no one seemed to claim the dog, so
after a second trip inside the store to ask the clerks if they
knew whose dog it was ("nope, not our pooch" was
the gist) my dad walked back outside, opened the back door of
the car and gestured for the dog to get in, which
amazingly enough it promptly did. They took him home and named
him for the town (not so much a town, really,
more like a crossroads with attitude) where they found him, and
the rest is history. My sister and I were stunned
at first hearing of this tale, since neither of us could picture
dad doing something like this. I mean, our father
wasn't someone who just randomly picked up stray dogs outside
Turkey Hill Mini-Markets, no matter how cute
and lonely-looking they were. I'm not sure he really understood
it either, since on several occasions years later
after his wife's death, he told both of us that finding the dog
seemed like something fated, or an act of God.
And it was my dad's dog, there was no question. My mother
always got along famously with all kinds of
creatures, (including us, fortunately), and the creatures sensed
this in turn and gravitated back at her, but this
pooch latched on to Pop, no ifs ands or whatevers. It followed
him everywhere, looked up longingly at him at the
dinner table, and parked itself next to his favorite chair when
he wasn't at home. Unconditional love, much? It
might have been cloyingly annoying if the doggone dog wasn't so
doggone cute and frisky and happy and all, and
if that friskier attitude didn't rub off on a man entering his
senior years.
And I have no doubt that little dog kept my father sane and gave
him a purpose in life after his human partner was
gone. He didn't feel like getting up and going for a walk, but
the dog needed walking, so up he'd get. The dog
needed to be fed and bathed and taken to the vet and played fetch
with and all those other doggie things, and do
them he did. My sister and I were immensely grateful, but even
a dog has his day, and there were signs that that
day was getting closer.
All dog owners know that one of the favorite pastimes of the canine
species is walking around with a ball, stick or
other object in mouth and dropping it in front of you, so you
can toss it away and then they'll run after it and bring
it back again. This wacky repetitive routine can go on for so
long that you may start to wonder why your dog
doesn't seem to have a life beyond barking and fetching, but from
an historical-biological standpoint, it makes
perfect sense if you're a dog. After all, what does a dog do in
the wild? Dogs are social animals, just like we are,
and like us, they run in packs and form close-knit vertical social
hierarchies and assign pack leadership duties to
an alpha dog. Dogs are also carnivores, and so they need to have
first rate hunting skills, since the food often has
a tendency to run away from them. So, running after prey and then
bringing the food back to the pack is where
it's at for a day in dogville.
Some dogs won't always drop the ball at your feet, though. They
keep it clamped in their jaws, and just look at
you expectantly. You have to reach over, actively remove the
ball from between the teeth, and then throw
it. This is a fascinating variant, when you ponder it. If the
ball is metaphorical food to your dog, why would it
allow you to take it right out of its mouth? Dropping the 'food'
on the ground says to the pack, here's dinner,
ain't I cool for getting it? Everybody who's a homey gets to share.
Want me to go get some more, be cooler
yet?
This only happens if the dog isn't famished. Otherwise, it keeps
the food to itself, and if you try to yank dinner out
of the clutches of the hungry one, you're gonna get a fight. The
dog will growl, raise its hackles, present a
menacing posture. If you persist, you may pay with spilled blood.
Now, I'm not a doggy psychologist by any
means, but it seems to me that if a dog allows you to take
'food' from its mouth, that dog has a special
relationship with you. My father's dog obviously had a special
relationship to him, since on many occasions I
watched them play this game. My dad would reach for the ball,
and the dog would make a growling noise, but
without raising any hackles, and often his tail would keep right
on wagging. They'd 'wrestle' with the ball for 15
to 30 seconds, with some additional faux growling, then the ball
was suddenly released willingly. Ball gets thrown,
chased after. Rinse and repeat. Happy dog, lucky man.
It wasn't always a ball, either, or other metaphorical vittles.
It could even be real food, like a dog biscuit, but
same play mode. Grab, growl, wrestle, throw. It was literally
funny if you were standing by and watching the
action unfold. But one day, the growling was a little louder and
more ferocious than usual, and when my dad
yanked the ball as he had done hundreds of times before, the dog
gave a loud, sharp bark and snapped at his
hand. He didn't connect, but my dad was shocked.
I'm sure that a "Bad dog! Why did you do that?" or somesuch
response followed the attempted biting incident.
But after that, dad wouldn't allow anyone else to play the game
with his dog, and he never played as aggressively
as he had done before. If the tail stopped wagging and the growls
hit a certain pitch, he'd just let go of the ball, at
which point the dog would sport this quizzical look. What, you
don't wanna play any more?
Maybe old age makes us revert to nature instead of nurture, whether
we be man or dog. Maybe we don't even
realize that it's happening, time slip-slides away and one shiny
unhappy morning we wake up cranky and stay that
way. Maybe we want what we feel is rightfully ours, and
we don't want to share anymore. Maybe we
don't even want to play at sharing. Or maybe we wake up apathetic,
and stay that way instead, perhaps if apathy
was our inner nature and after years of actively fighting against
it via work or hobbies or family or friends we just
say to hell with it, I give up. Or maybe you get cranky first,
and then apathetic, something like the Kubler-Ross
five stages of death.
Not too long after the dog died, my dad had to stop driving because
he would get lost and not know where he
was, although he wouldn't directly admit to it. My sister knew
it was happening because he would disappear with
the car for an entire afternoon, and when he got back home, literally
couldn't tell her where he was the whole
time. She started to approach him with the idea of maybe 'turning
in' his license, but he wouldn't accept it, and
ignored her. Desperate, she appealed to me to tell him, "...
he'll listen to you, I don't know what else to
do." It wasn't a happy moment, because she was right,
he did listen to me, but I sat there and watched a
good part of his remaining lifeforce drain right out of him as
I spoke, no matter how gently and kindly I tried to
phrase the matter at hand. He stopped driving, and within a year
he was gone, fortunately fairly quickly from a
heart attack. True to the 'stages' theory, there was acceptance
at the end, but we always hated to see how he
thought of his life as largely pointless over his last years.
In the eulogy I wrote for the minister to read at the
funeral service, I took the opportunity to enlighten the gathered
friends and family that his life made a big
difference to us, whether the general population of the world
had ever heard of him or not. He meant well, and
mostly did so for the majority of his years, despite the efforts
of the world to limit him, so he certainly was a hero
to his wife and my sister and I.
Heroism isn't always a highly public activity, and has no inherent
disposition in the direction of fame. When you
think about it, the fictional character of Buffy Summers has a
widely-held public heroic stature only to we the
viewers, here outside the fourth wall. In her own universe, only
a small handfull of people even know who she
really is (although it's a bigger handfull by the end of the series).
Spike summed it up perfectly in Touched,
when he told Buffy that "I love what you are, what you
do, how you try. I've seen your strength, and your
kindness, I've seen the best and the worst of you and I understand
with perfect clarity exactly what you are."
Heroism can even occur when someone who generally lacks direction
and focus in their lives finds some kind of a
just cause to believe in, and acts, however imperfectly, to pursue
that cause. Naturally, the definition of a 'just
cause' varies depending on who you talk to. Just earlier today,
in an article in The Philadelphia Inquirer,
some American news reporters over in Iraq arranged two short interviews
with the leaders of what we would
normally regard as 'guerrilla fighters' who plan and carry out
attacks on American military personnel. To us, these
people are the enemy because they want to kill us, or at least
certain groups of us, but in each case the cell leader
spoke earnestly of 'defending his country and his faith'. Are
they fanatics? Possibly, maybe even probably, and
they are unquestionably deadly. Are they crazy or evil? A much
harder question to answer, and maybe it isn't
even possible.
This week's Classic Movie, Boxcar Bertha, is a film
that attempts to take what seems like an
overt point of view as to who is good and who is evil and then
at least partially undercuts that stance by providing
us with 'heroes' who have a number of negative characteristics,
not in the least of which is a gross lack of
consistancy in their idealism. Released in 1972 by a then nearly
unknown director named Martin Scorsese, the
movie starts out like any number of classic good guy/bad guy,
simplistic exploitational flicks, but over the course
of the next hour and a quarter shows touches of artistic deftness
that will crop up again and again in Scorsese's
later work.
The plot outline is fairly simple, and in fact I would caution
you to sit tight through the first 10 minutes of the film,
because it really doesn't look very promising at first glance.
The film was produced by Roger Corman, whose
preferred marketing style works well for 'B-movies', but who isn't
a person one normally associates with a
director like Scorsese. The opening scene is a shot of a woman's
face, with eyes looking heavenward. We pull
back and see that she is watching a biplane doing a crop dusting
run over some fields while nearby there is a crew
of railroad workers driving in spikes while repairing a set of
tracks. The woman is Bertha Thompson (Barbara
Hershey), and the plane she is watching is being piloted by her
father. Sitting nearby her is her father's mechanic,
an African-American man named Von Morton (Bernie Casey). The plane
lands, and her father tells another man
who walks over to him that he can't complete the remainder of
the job because his plane is malfunctioning and it's
too dangerous. The man tells him rudely and in no uncertain terms
that if he doesn't get the job finished, he won't
get paid. He takes to the air again, and sure enough, the plane
crashes and he is killed. One of the railroad
workers, Bill Shelly (David Carradine) rushes over and after the
'boss man' tries to blame the accident on the
pilot, a fight ensues. Meanwhile, Bertha screams and weeps over
the body of her father, and we cut to the
opening credits.
Once we get past this 'setup' scene, things start to improve.
In what I suspect may have been the original opening
sequence, we see a rapidly edited montage of clips that tell us
that this is the Depression era of American history,
with a heavy train motif threaded through the shots of newspaper
headlines and newsreel footage. As the credits
end, we see Bertha walking into a gathering of railroad workers
who are on strike against the railroad. The leader
of the strikers, the same 'Big' Bill Shelly she met briefly at
the occasion of her father's tragic 'accident', is
speechmaking and rousing the other men to take the fight back
to the railroad owners and their 'goons' who are
trying to break up the strike by violent means. As the speech
ends and a fight gets underway, Bertha sensibly runs
off, but later accidently meets up with Bill. He puts her up in
a railroad car for the night, and the two end up
making love. The next morning, Bill is gone, presumably off to
either organize for the union or maybe simply avoid
the cops and/or goons. Bertha hops a freight and ends up in another
town, somewhere.
Next we see Bertha entering a 'hobo camp' nearby a railroad yard.
She plays a game of craps with three other
men, and wins a small sum of money. One of the men is a man who
turns out to be on the run from some troubles
up North, and at first won't even speak for fear of showing his
'Yankee' accent. His name is Rake Brown (Barry
Primus), and with his introduction we have now met the four major
players of the movie.
One of the odd but eventually intriguing stylistic methodologies
Scorsese uses in Boxcar Bertha is that the
action takes place in chunks or groups of time spread over a period
of maybe 5-10 years, but it's hard to tell
exactly how many. A series of events will take place over a few
days or weeks of time, and then the story
suddenly slides forward several months or years. No prior cues
are given to when this will happen, and no note is
made of it after it does, so when a new part of the story takes
place, we have to shift our mental gears and 'catch
up'. I don't think this is a mistake, I think Scorsese is using
the time-slippage to emphasize the often directionless-
seeming actions of his 'heroes'. In any event, when next we see
Rake and Bertha, it appears that the two have
now been lovers for several months or longer.
Rake and Bertha get into trouble when a card game with a man who
is a lawyer for the railroad goes wrong and
the laywer is killed. Now on the run, not just wandering aimlessly
as they previously were, the two again meet up
with Bill and several of his friends, also on the run. The train
that they are riding in rolls into a town, and as it does,
police appear and arrest Bill and his men. By coincidence, Von
Morton is already in the jail cell that the union
members are taken to. And once again, horrific violence erupts
after a racist deputy is directed by the equally
racist sheriff to 'make a nigger out of' Bill for the crime of
being openly friendly with Von Morton.
This general theme repeats several times throughout the remainder
of the film, interspersed with the main group of
four (Bill, Bertha, Rake and Von Morton) being 'forced' to take
up thievery in order to support the goals of the
strikers and the railroad workers union. This is where Scorsese
shovels in the ambiguity, because the 'heroes'
don't behave so much like Robin Hood as they do like closet opportunists
who just happen to have the handy
excuse of serving an obviously justice-oriented cause. Rather
nicely, though, there is a range of behavior
displayed in the motivations of the four fugitives. Bill is the
closest to behaving in an altruistic manner-- he
repeatedly states that he 'isn't a criminal', and it's fairly
clear that he means it even if he isn't quite living the
dream. He seems to be the one most trapped by circumstances, since
he can't just leave for California, as Bertha
suggests, because then he feels like he would not only be abandoning
his cause, but the thievery would then have
no greater purpose. On the other hand, if he stays, he endangers
not only himself but the others around him, who
are where they are now because of him.
Bertha is a simple-minded person, and I don't mean that in the
usual negative way. She's not overly intelligent,
but it's likely that she's had few opportunities to educate herself.
For the most part, she takes people for what
they are, faults and all, and pretty much tries to get along.
It's a child-like demeanor, something I didn't
understand many years ago when I first saw this film-- I initially
thought Hershey was mocking the character and
turning her into the stereotypical Southern backwoods babe, but
on a later viewing got the actual drift. Realizing
that the character is an older child in a woman's body explains
what otherwise seem to be discontinuities in
behavior, such as the sort of 'naughty' glee she takes in participating
in some of the train holdups and such, or the
mostly innocent approach to her sexuality. Bertha's greatest asset
is her loyalty, which is ferocious. Once she
befriends someone, she's a friend for life.
Rake is the most 'practical' character, a practicality that is
based primarily on self-preservation. He's loyal to a
degree, but much of the reason he hangs with the other three comes
down to the fact that no one else really
seems to like him or trust him. At the same time, he's fairly
sympathetic in his weaknesses. It's easy to think
you'd be brave in the face of pain and possible death, but when
the reality gets in your face, you might make a
break for it too rather than risk your neck. His relationship
to his friends does elevate his morality at least
somewhat though, much like occurred with Andrew after living at
Casa Summers for several months. I won't
reveal what happens to him at the end of the film, but I will
say that he does gain his freedom by choice, rather
than merely having it 'happen'.
Von Morton is the guy who 'goes with the flow', which makes him
seem cowardly until you realize that his
alternative is basically death or worse. He's a black man living
in a profoundly racist society, branded a criminal
and a degenerate being just by virtue of existing. Long experience
has made him proficient at presenting most of
the white world with the 'properly subservient' mannerisms that
he knows will keep him out of trouble. Another
positive point for the film is how actor Bernie Casey elevates
the mostly mediocre screenplay to a greater level by
altering the tone and pacing of his readings so that whenever
he is in a momentary position of power over his
oppressors, that he slyly mocks them by playing on their stereotypical
presumptions while to the prejudiced ear or
eye he is still 'dat same ol' darkie'. This man may very well
be the most intelligent and courageous person of the
entire group, but if you don't look past his character's 'survival
facade', you could easily miss it.
The various 'bad guys' in Boxcar are a little on the cardboardy
side, but to be fair they don't have as
much screen time as the four leads, and this is a fairly short
film, only a little over an hour and a half. Scorsese was
still a novice director at this point in time, and was working
for a production company famous for 'quick and
dirty' output. As I mentioned earlier on, the picture does picks
up steadily as it moves along, and the final scene in
particular is stunning both creatively and for the genuine emotional
wallop it packs.
Scorsese has a well-deserved reputation for examining characters
who live on the outer fringes of society, and the
fact that violence seems to either pervade or punctuate their
lives. His heroic figures are seldom ever noble in the
pure, traditional sense of the word, but are instead cut from
the whole cloth of real life, with all of its rips and tears
and patches. That he undoubtably prefers this more realistic vision
of humanity's spiritual balancing act on the
knife-edge of heaven and hell to the simplistic yes or no, either/or,
devil or angel, either eat the apple or shut-the-
hell-up-and-be-happy-already modus operandi is one great reason
why his films fascinate and enlighten us year
after year.
All on booooaaarrrard...
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Technically, all you can write is what you see:
Boxcar Bertha is available on DVD. The review copy was
on laserdisc and unfortunately in a low quality,
pan'n'scan version, but this is what I had available. (This film
may be hard to locate at your local video shop, but
do try to get the DVD version if at all possible, because the
cropped 4x3 'standard TV' version seriously
alters the visual language of the production. I can tell, even
without having seen the original version, since many
scenes throughout the entire film looked blatantly oddly framed
or blocked. The DVD release is formatted in the
original theatrical 1.85:1 ratio, and according to DVD Savant
film reviewer Glenn Erickson, is
considerably cleaner and better looking visually in other ways.)
The film was released in 1972 and the run time is
1 hour and 32 minutes.
Writing credits go to Bertha Thompson and Ben L. Reitman (for
the book Sisters of the Road), with the
screenplay by Joyce Hooper Corrington and John William Corrington.
The film was produced by Julie Corman,
Roger Corman, James H. Nicholson and Samuel Z. Arkoff. Cinematography
was by John Stephens with film
editing by Buzz Feitshans. Original music was by Gib Guilbeau
and Thad Maxwell. The original theatrical sound
mix was monaural.
Cast overview:
Barbara Hershey .... 'Boxcar' Bertha Thompson
David Carradine .... 'Big' Bill Shelly
Barry Primus .... Rake Brown
Bernie Casey .... Von Morton
John Carradine .... H. Buckram Sartoris
Victor Argo .... McIver #1
David Osterhout .... McIver #2
Grahame Pratt .... Emeric Pressburger
'Chicken' Holleman .... M. Powell
Harry Northup .... Harvey Hall
Ann Morell .... Tillie Parr
Marianne Dole .... Mrs. Mailler
Joe Reynolds .... Joe Cox
*******
Miscellaneous Dept:
I wear the black for the poor and the beaten down
Livin' in the hopeless hungry side of town
I wear it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime
But is there because he's a victim of the times
............ Johnny Cash
cjl already posted a lovely tribute to the unforgettable Johnny
Cash, who as you likely already know died earlier
this last week. As such, I don't have a lot more to add, except
to say I wish I had understood his music better at
a younger age. But, I was so much older then.
***
(Old??) News Item: Woody Guthrie's home town is divided on paying
him homage. Go to:
http://www.geocities.com/Nashville/3448/okemah2.html
BTW, if my sources are correct, that "all you can write is
what you see" line I borrowed is Guthrie's.
***
I mentioned the "DVD Savant", Glenn Erikson, earlier
on in the technical section. Here's a few of his comments
on Boxcar Bertha for your perusal. BTW, if you are a movie
lover and have never checked out the
Savant's oeurve, you owe it to yourself-- this man knows his cinema!
Boxcar Bertha is made more to the formula of AIP's other
early '70s rural crime pictures -
Dillinger and Bloody Mama, than it is a debut Martin
Scorsese epic. Yet it bears his personality in
some striking cinematic touches. A curiosity, yes, but still more
coherent and less exploitational than the other
two, and despite its inadequate production values, is also the
most interesting. (...)
Dillinger seeingly exists mostly to give director John
Milius the chance to shoot a lot of guns. Bloody
Mama is mainly an opportunity for Shelley Winters to overact,
and is almost a self-parody. Boxcar
Bertha, the story of a jailbait vagrant and her Bonnie Parker-like
crime spree, has less to work with but
comes out on top anyway. (...)
Made in the days of total studio confusion, even at AIP, Boxcar
Bertha doesn't know if it is trash or art.
Like Jim Thompson or Philip K. Dick being forced to insert sex
scenes into their pulp novels, there's nudity and
lovemakin' in almost every reel of this 'rebels versus the evil
railroad' epic. Every part is woefully underwritten, but
the leads carry the show with distinction. (...)
The director has some fun with the casting and character names.
Two railroad thugs are named Pressberger and
Powell, which proves Scorsese's infatuation with the Archers was
already firmly in place in '72. One of them is a
dead ringer for an early MGM actor who was spoofed in the Who
Killed Who? Tex Avery cartoon - a
pudgy guy with a bowler hat and a Hitler moustache. A lawyer who
plays cards with Rake in an early scene is the
same unbilled blackjack dealer in producer Corman's X - The
Man with X-Ray Eyes of a decade before.
Perhaps Corman remembered him because he was a good card handler?
One of the low-down deputies who
falls for Bertha's charms is played by the Scorsese regular who
was one of the cabbies in Taxi Driver, the
one who carried a piece of bathroom tile from a celebrity's house.
It's a sure mark of a '70s film-school-wonder
director, when they emulate the classic directors' penchant for
building a stock company. Scorsese gives himself a
fleeting bit as a sportin' house Johnny. (...)
(c) Glenn Erikson / DVD Savant
*******
The Question of the Week:
This question assumes you have seen the film, but if you have,
it's a heck of a question, and the one I keep asking
myself every time I see it again:
Who's driving the train at the very end?
That's all for this week, dear friends and flickophiles, so as
always-- post 'em if you've got 'em, and tune in next
week for yet another Classic Movie review for your enjoyment,
entertainment and/or sleep-aid requirements.
Take care!
*******
SFX Special
Edition on Buffy: Top 20 Episodes -- Kitkat, 10:51:58 09/15/03
Mon
Sorry if someone has already seen this and commented on it, I
haven't been able to get on the board for ages!
SFX have published a guide to Buffy, including all 144 episodes
discussed and rated. Their top 20 largely tallies with what I
have seen people expressing as their top episodes, but I think
the bottom 10 has a few surprises....
1 - Hush
2 - Once more with feeling
3 - Restless
4 - The Body
5 - Innocence
6 - Becoming II
7 - Surprise
8 - Chosen
9 - What's my line II
10 - Fool for love
11 - Graduation day II
12 - Graduation day I
13 - Becoming I
14 - The Zeppo
15 - Earshot
16 - Harsh light of day
17 - Superstar
18 - Selfless
19 - Prophecy Girl
20 - Passion
134 - Some Assembly Required
135 - Dead Man's Party
136 - Go Fish
137 - Anne
138 - All the Way
139 - Life Serial
140 - Reptile Boy
141 - Gone
142 - Gingerbread
143 - Hell's Bells
144 - Beer Bad
If anyone wants to know the justifications for their choices I
can summarise their text for you.
Kitkat
[> Re: SFX Special Edition
on Buffy: Top 20 Episodes -- Sofdog, 11:07:50 09/15/03
Mon
They have some nerve putting "Anne" in the bottom 20
when "Where the Wild Things Are" isn't there. That episode
didn't need to happen for so many reasons. It's as bad as Xena's
"Married with Fishsticks."
[> What? -- Rob, 11:17:48
09/15/03 Mon
Anne, Dead Man's Party, Life Serial, Gone, Gingerbread, Hell's
Bells, and Beer Bad at the bottom 20?!? Have these people seen
I, Robot, You Jane?
Rob
[> Re: SFX Special Edition
on Buffy: Top 20 Episodes -- grifter, 11:21:03 09/15/03
Mon
I can agree with most of the list, although "Life Serial"
and "Hell´s Bells" don´t deserve their spot
on the "worst" list, and there are some episodes I would
put on the "best" list, like "Conversations with
Dead People", "Dirty Girls" or "Dead Things"...just
a question of personal taste I guess.
[> [> I hate reading
top 20 lists...its so frustrating! -- Nino,
12:26:21 09/15/03 Mon
[> Re: SFX Special Edition
on Buffy: Top 20 Episodes -- RJA, 11:45:26 09/15/03 Mon
Reading the full list, one gets the feeling that they just used
a dartboard to rank many of the episodes (especially the ones
in the middle).
They call Empty Places an abject failure, yet it ranks higher
than Afterlife which is criticised for not having enough of a
plot.
But isnt the point of these lists to outrage fans and getting
them talking about it anyway?
[> [> Re: SFX Special
Edition on Buffy: Top 20 Episodes -- Casi, 12:00:19 09/15/03
Mon
I can't believe Beneath you isn't somewhere near the top. Okay,
so what if most of the episode was a rip off of Tremors? The fact
is, the last fifteen or so minutes is to die for. Not only plot
wise, but the cinimatography is beautiful. And I have to admire
James Marsters so much for that scene. Darn fine acting.
[> Even the bottom ten are
essential to the whole. (A defense of the 'worst of the worst'!)
-- cjl, 12:42:35 09/15/03 Mon
134 - Some Assembly Required
From Jay's tribute below: "I love Buffy and Xander walking
in on Giles talking to the chair. Buffy's advice and Xander's
fearful remarks are also spot on. It all spells 'duh'.
"The speech Xander gives about what being in front of people
and not being what they want is so fascinating with Willow wanting
Xander, who wants Buffy, who wants Angel. Xander means one thing,
while Willow could say the exact same thing about him. Good stuff.
"Do I deconstruct your segues? Huh?
"Ooh, Jenny! Better yet. Jenny liking football! A romance
is born.
"I love the Xander/Cordelia foreshadowing by the way. We
knew what we were seeing with Giles and Jenny, but the hints at
Xander and Cordelia are hilarious. Especially looking back.
"Did you just say, 'second date'?"
135 - Dead Man's Party
The mother of all Scoobie blow-ups, at least until Empty Places.
But this one makes, you know, SENSE. A pivotal episode as Buffy
re-integrates with the gang, but still falls victim to them old
Slayer alienation blues, which remain unresolved until Chosen.
Much Joyce-ness, which is also good. And, oh yeah--Nighthawk!
Hee!
136 - Go Fish
Absolutely essential if you want to understand why Xander tells
Buffy "the Lie" in Becoming. As Diana so astutely pointed
out, this is the ep where Xander takes the initiative and transfers
his energies from backing up Buffy to the Mission.
137 - Anne
I've always thought "Anne" was the pilot for AtS. L.A.,
demons preying on humanity, helping the helpless, blah blah blah.
We also had Buffy's dark night of the soul and her re-dedication
to the cause at the end. Plus: "Gandhi...if he was pissed
off." And Buffy sucks at undercover. She really does.
138 - All the Way
Aw. Dawnie's first kiss--but more important, Xander and Anya announce
their engagement. A touching scene, greatly enhanced by juicy
X/A smooching and the hidden origins of Giles' obsessive glasses-cleaning.
139 - Life Serial
The mummy hand. Slug candles. "Bleeeah!" Jonathan as
Satan from South Park. The first appearance of Clem. (Clem, you
SFX wankers!) Yeah, Fury's half of the script sucked, but what're
you gonna do?
140 - Reptile Boy
Willow tells off Giles and Angel, and I fall in love with her
all over again. Xander is hazed, Buffy and Cordy in chains, and
the frat boys from Hell get theirs. Yes, Machida looked ridiculous,
but let's stay on the metaphor here.
141 - Gone
It rhymes with blinvisible. Willow as Nancy Drew. Arch nemisises.
Buffy taunts Doris, then goes down on Spike--in prime time! (In
front of Xander!)
142 - Gingerbread
I don't agree with this ranking at all. People didn't like this
episode? It's Espenson's Are You Now or Have You Ever Been. Kristine
Sutherland is freaking SCARY in this ep. We're introduced to Willow's
Mom, and she's every bit the neglectful nightmare we thought she
was. Yes, Oz, fairy tales are real. (It's in the mission statement--look
it up.)
143 - Hell's Bells
Speaking of parental nightmares--hello, Tony Harris! Even if you
think Xander's character was needlessly destroyed by this episode,
the last scene with Anya and D'Hoffryn should automatically knock
Hell's Bells out of the bottom ten.
144 - Beer Bad
"Boy smell good." Cave Slayer pulverizes Parker. What
more do you need?
[> [> What cjl said
-- shambleau, 14:09:36 09/15/03 Mon
And needless to say, although I'm gonna say it anyway, my bottom
ten would be different, but STILL essential.
[> Votes -- Celebaelin,
13:19:28 09/15/03 Mon
Beer Bad? 144th out of 144? Shurely shome mishtake? I know I have
unusual tastes as regards eps. (WTWTA, DP, Gone, ITW and Fear
Itself amongst others) but I really didn't expect that Beer Bad
would get the fewest votes, or the most criticism, depending on
your perspective.
C
[> [> The ATPo consensus
on the five worst episodes: -- cjl, 13:32:34 09/15/03 Mon
Bad Eggs
Beer Bad
Where the Wild Things Are
Doublemeat Palace
As You Were
Not everyone here agrees with all of these choices, but I believe
most ATP posters would rate at least two of these as bottom feeders.
And yet, four out of five didn't make the SFX bottom ten.
Not sure I would list Beer Bad as the ultimate in Buffy badness,
but something's got to occupy the bottom slot, and this is as
deserving as any other ep. (Naturally, as you can see in the sub-thread
above, I would still defend the relative quality of any Buffy
ep.)
Which episode would you consider the worst?
[> [> [> Where the
Wild Things Are -- Masq, 13:45:48 09/15/03 Mon
Cringe
I liked Beer Bad and Bad Eggs and Double Meat Palace. You gotta
get into the sense of humor of those episodes. Beer Bad with its
pretentious frat boys turned Cro-mags made me laugh out loud.
DMP deliberately created a mind-numbing tone that anyone who ever
worked fast food but had higher ambitions can relate to. Each
of these episodes has interesting metaphors in them.
Didn't care for:
Older and Far Away
I Was Made To Love You
WTWTA (worst of the worst)
Him
I judge this by, "What episodes would I be embarrassed to
show a new Buffy fun/non-Buffy fan that I was trying to interest
in the show?" In my case, none of those episodes come from
seasons 1-3. There were some filler episodes that didn't do anything,
like "Go Fish", but other than slowing down the viewer's
getting to the good stuff (Becoming), they were passable eps.
[> [> [> [> 'Soylent
Green' anyone? (Or, why I can't hate any ep of Buffy) -- Nino, 14:07:35 09/15/03
Mon
I've never heard anyone mention the fairly obvious parallel between
"DP" and the Charlton Heston movie "Soylent Green"
where there is a similar revelation that "the food is made
of people!" When watching Buffy recite this line for the
first time, I was cracking up...the whole Fast-Food-mind-numbing
thing is also kinda obvious, but still entertaining...i dunno,
i don't hate it, mainly because I saw the "SG" thing
and thought, "Huh...those guys at ME are always thinking."
Even when they miss, the thought behind the ep always shines through
for me.
I must say, "Beer Bad", although the most hated ep of
Buffy, is not that low on my list...Willow is the cutest thing
ever in it (W: I don't think this is entirely on the up an up.
X: What gave it away? W: Lookin at it.). Her scenes with Parker
are great, and I'm sorry but the Giles reaction to savage Buffy
was priceless...all in all not that bad of an ep!
I must say I disagree with your dislike of "Older and Far
Away" which I thought was fabulous, especially for Anya.
It gave such a great feeling of being trapped that was a microcosim
for the whole season...interesting that it is in a closed environment,
possibly to showcase that it is in fact a microcosim?
Also..."Him"...im sorry...i laughed my ass off..."His
inner-spirit..has a penis."
WTWTA...I have to say, I don't remember liking or disliking the
ep...i need to rewatch it on my DVD's (I got season 4 not long
ago, and have been kinda slow)...but I'll bet I don't hate it.
I must say the eps that I dislike the most are usually season
1 and early season 2 when the monster of the week plots were just
kinda silly (Go Fish, I Robot, You Jane, etc)...but even those
are bearable because they all have some classic line or moment
that I love.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Where the Wild Things Are -- celticross, 18:02:51 09/16/03
Tue
Ack! I'm with you, Masq. WTWTA hurt me deeply, mostly from the
painful embarassment I felt for SMG and Marc Blucas, having to
be pretend they were attracted to each other. I know there are
a lot of Riley fans on this board, and I like Riley well enough
too...when he's not with Buffy. I've only seen WTWTA once, when
it first aired, and I've never been able to watch it again.
[> [> [> [> [>
Hated 'Where the Wild Things Are' too, but you have to admit.....
-- cjl, 07:22:14 09/17/03 Wed
Giles' "God of Acoustic Rock" scene was cool beyond
all human measurement, and the Spike/Anya banter was perfect.
You see? Every episode, no matter how bad, has a little something
something.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Plus Giles, with a chainsaw. -- Arethusa, 08:14:30
09/17/03 Wed
I started watching BtVS at the end of Season 3, and WTWTA was
the first time I saw the Ripper in Giles, as well as Musical!Giles.
So I have a tiny fondness for the episode, as part of the Essential
Giles oeuvre.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> err...that was in 'fear itself' -- anom, 20:21:45
09/17/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> (Embarrassed now. But that means I can dilsike
the ep freely, so all is not lost.) -- Arethusa, 21:36:17
09/17/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> eeesshh...neither of those was my intention--sorry
-- anom, 10:36:36 09/18/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> LOL -- Arethusa, 17:56:28
09/18/03 Thu
Don't mind me, I'm a little distracted. Real life has been relentlessly
real this month.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> reality just showed up,
huh? -- anom, 22:05:19 09/18/03 Thu
Even more sorry, then! I hope things get better soon!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Yes, those were great. The other things I really liked
in WtWtA... -- Rob, 11:17:54 09/18/03 Thu
...are the musical cue, early on in the episode that makes the
music coming from Xander's ice cream truck sound otherworldly
and creepy. Reminded me of "Tubular Bells" from "The
Exorcist". I also adored the thorns/Sleeping Beauty-inspired
climax, including Anya risking life and limb (almost literally!)
to save her beloved Xander. And Buffy and Riley's final reactions
to how "awful" their experience had been. And, hate
to admit it, because I know many were squicked by it, but I thought
the "orgasm wall" was funny. In fact, okay, I'll come
out and admit. I just plain liked this episode and really never
understood why it was disliked by most fans. Well, actually I
do know why, from reading other posts, but I never had that same
reaction myself.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> There is a bad Buffy eps -- faithfanforever,
17:33:30 09/18/03 Thu
Well I thought about this one and really couldn't come up w/an
eps I felt was horrible, or not worthy of showing my friends (and
right now I'm giving a friend a crash course in Buffy) but truthfully
I felt that they all have their own style and that it's hard to
pick one out of the bunch that was well bad. Granted I didn't
watch alot of season 7 as it was out on our station alot, but
I think that there are some that might be sharper then others
in the writing or acting or subject matter, but then in the smaller
eps have some great moments w/the cast, that have been talked
about. Someone said Fear, itself. I love that one, the whole Anya
in a Bunny suit. OH and I'm w/god shirt and being Joan of Arc.
(Along w/being a huge Eliza/Faith fan I'm a closet Oz/Seth freak).
Plus it brings about some great story lines, Willow and her magic,
Oz and his fear of his werewolfness... Xander and him being all
alone. And also the key which is the sepration that takes place
during the whole season. I mean if there was one eps that set
it all up for you that would be the one. It really put forth alot
of the theme as well for the season.
[> [> [> Go Fish
-- Alison, 14:10:57 09/15/03 Mon
I loathe that episode. And I can't say that about any other episode
of Buffy. I wish I didn't have to. I know that there's Jonathan,
and Speedo-Xander and cute X/C but honestly, I will NEVER rewatch
that episode. It was dull and embarrassing. Everyone involved
in Buffy deserved better.
Bad Eggs is pretty bad, but I think it's somewhat redeemed by
the B/A interaction, the clever metaphors and Willow's Jewish
egg.
I personally adore Beer Bad. It's hilarious. Parker finally gets
his just rewards. But most importantly, it fits very neatly with
S4's exploration of Buffy's primal roots and reveals that whatever
the slayer's origins Buffy is, at heart, good. So the metaphors
were so obvious they were like being hit over the head with Buffy's
club...Beer...foamy. What's not to like?
[> [> [> Least compelling
episodes -- Celebaelin, 14:37:17 09/15/03 Mon
I've just made some pretence of thinking about this carefully
but I don't really have to. My least favourite episodes have something
in common - they seem to me to exist solely as devices to rejuvenate
the plot by suddenly 'doing a 180'.
The eps I'm talking about are As You Were and Bargaining (Parts
I & II). They may be vital to the plot direction subsequently
but in terms of the handling? Not so good IMHO. I was relatively
uninterested in (compared to how interested I should have been
in the 'raison d'etre' for S6 or Buffy throwing off her blues
and finding her own direction) and unconvinced by the plot developments
which the episodes were vehicles for.
I also had an instinctive negative reaction to Hells Bells but
this is probably unjustified and more about my unwillingness to
see Xander as he has been written than it is anything else.
[> [> [> [> Bargaining
-- dmw, 06:54:09 09/17/03 Wed
Bargaining started out so well with the Scoobies dealing with
the consequences of Buffy's death, but after the first half hour,
the stupid demon bikers were introduced (they'd be the worst MotW
for s6 except for the loan shark in TR) and Buffy's return was
just a spell. I had hoped for something like the epic journeys
of myth, which may have been too much to hope for given how easy
resurrection is on the show when the writers feel like doing it,
but overall I didn't see much to be impressed with in this double
episode.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Ah, but - cuppa tea, cuppa tea, almost got shagged, cuppa
tea -- Brian, 08:26:54 09/17/03 Wed
[> [> [> As You Were
-- Rendyl, 14:41:38 09/15/03 Mon
For me, it is the episode I just pretend never happened. I like
to block all of it but the last scene (between Buffy and Spike).
For me they are pretty much the episode.
I am not fond of 'Into the Woods' or (like Masq) 'WTWTA' but they
come no where near the 'badness' level of AYW.
But then I loved 'Beer Bad'. ;)
Ren
[> [> [> [> Agreed
-- Rook, 16:07:48 09/15/03 Mon
[> [> [> There are
two different lists here from my point of view: -- KdS, 14:43:52
09/15/03 Mon
Both lists in transmission order:
From the point of view of confusedness/obnoxiousness of subject
matter expressed:
Ted
Gingerbread
Wrecked
Seeing Red (in hindsight of decisions made for S7)
Lies My Parents Told Me
From the point of view of technically bad scriptwriting, acting,
direction, effects etc:
Bad Eggs
Beer Bad
Triangle
Wrecked
As You Were
Note the single episode to appear on both lists ;-)
[> [> [> [> Re:
There are two different lists here from my point of view:
-- shambleau, 14:51:17 09/15/03 Mon
Hmm.Whatever I think of Wrecked's subject matter, I can't agree
that it was badly acted or directed. And I thought it had some
of the best effects that year. There are eps with far worse editing,
though I agree that there were timeline problems.
[> [> [> [> [>
Yeah, but even if you like the metaphor -- KdS, 15:03:58
09/15/03 Mon
When an ep reminds you irresistably of Reefer Madness,
and it's meant to be serious, that is not good.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Yeah, but even if you like the metaphor -- RJA,
15:58:27 09/15/03 Mon
Fortunately, I've never watched Reefer Madness. And since the
metaphor is such that no one could take it seriously (can one
preach entirely through a metaphor?), I dont think there is much
harm done.
I also think, when entirely focusing on the emotions and the characters,
it is one of the most affecting episodes of show. Indeed, it is
the focus on this that stops the metaphor from preaching. Its
not telling the audience 'dont do drugs', but rather the focus
is on Willow's descent. Something which came out of her character,
rather than being imposed.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Yeah, but even if you like the metaphor -- shambleau,
19:53:06 09/15/03 Mon
Oh, I totally understand why some people recoiled. But, having
been in a car which someone crashed because they were high on
speed, and having three people I knew die from drug/alcohol related
problems and accidents, I don't shrug off anti-drug messages so
easily as just shrill propaganda.
Besides, I agree with RJA that the focus was on how Willow was
heading downward, not on preaching "Don't do drugs, kids!"
The Willow of S4 or 5 would have gotten the hell out of Rack's
or not even gone there in the first place. The Willow of S6 was
heading for a fall and one involving magic.
If it hadn't been the addictive dark magic, she'd have gotten
pissed at someone for challenging her and done some horrible spell
on them, she'd have pressed her luck with Osirus, or something
else overreaching. Bad was coming, that was sure. At least the
addiction angle meant her friends could blame that instead of
having to blame her directly.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Oh, I don't want to minimise the hazards of drug
abuse -- KdS, 05:51:32 09/16/03 Tue
But equally, from my personal experience, simplistic propaganda
(everyone who sells drugs is an obvious predatory degenerate in
an "I'm EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL BWAHAHAH!" T-shirt, all
illegal substances cause instant raging physical addiction after
one or two uses) is always counter-productive. Once people first
find out that it isn't all like that, they start thinking that
all anti-drug opinion is just exaggerated propaganda, such as
the outright refusal by a lot of people I know to accept any kind
of scientific evidence about long-term dangers from weed or ecstasy,
because it must be just another con by killjoy anti-drug fanatics.
They could have made it work if, say, we'd first seen Willow going
to Rack for a magic boost to help her bring Buffy back after all
the stuff she'd been doing the previous night in Weight of
the World or thereabouts, and Rack had seemed, at least at
first glance, like an amiable stoner who liked helping his buddies
get connected. Then the whole thing could have been built up over
the medium term in a way that would give a realistic idea of how
people develop drug problems. You know, a little more subtlety.
And I'm one of the faction that thinks that the physical addiction
stuff in S6 wasn't at all inherent in the previous portrayal of
Willow's relationship with magic, but was a cop-out out of fear
of ever making Willow truly unsympathetic, and that any of the
other possibilities that you mentioned would have been much better.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> And on that note -- Celebaelin, 06:51:14
09/16/03 Tue
Don't forget that MDMA, or ecstacy as it was later re-marketed,
can kill. I don't want to talk about rates, the simple fact is
enough for me to make the decision never to try it.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Willow's Problem With Magic Misunderstood
-- Claudia, 08:45:34 09/16/03 Tue
Judging from the comments I've read about "Wrecked",
it seems that many fans bought the Scoobies' excuse that Willow
was simply addicted to magic and needed to go cold turkey to be
cured. No one had ever stop to consider that the Scoobies' diagnosis
was really off the mark and that Willow's problems went a lot
deeper. Nor did anyone consider that Whedon had intended for the
Scoobies to be wrong about Willow and would find themselves mistaken
in the worst way possible, later in the season.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> If one person doesn't get it, that's
a misunderstanding. If *everyone* doesn't, that's bad TV.
-- Sophist, 10:19:40 09/16/03 Tue
it seems that many fans bought the Scoobies' excuse that Willow
was simply addicted to magic and needed to go cold turkey to be
cured.
We "bought" this because we were shown it, repeatedly,
over the course of numerous episodes and 2 entire seasons.
I wish your interpretation were correct, it would eliminate the
biggest misjudgment in the history of the show.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: If one person doesn't get
it, that's a misunderstanding. If *everyone* doesn't, that's bad
TV. -- Claudia, 11:21:30 09/16/03 Tue
You see, the problem is that not *everyone* didn't get it. Judging
from the numerous essays I have read, many realized that the Scoobies'
diagnosis of Willow's problems were off the mark.
I'm just wondering why so many of you believed that the Scoobies
were right, considering their ages and lack of experience in this
matter.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Part of it's that all of
the imagery used in 'Wrecked' was very similar to drugs --
Finn Mac Cool, 14:24:58 09/16/03 Tue
Rack's magic den, the affects it had on Willow, the way she, Amy,
and Rack talked about it. When such a clear paralell is drawn
in one episode, and characters verbally reinforce it in future
ones, it seems reasonable to assume it is the truth.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> On unsmpathetic Willow -- shambleau,
20:53:27 09/16/03 Tue
I agree that the main reason people dislike the ep is that they
see an equation of magic equals drugs, drugs are bad, and then
make their own equation of drugs are bad is simplistic propaganda,
so episode is bad. To me, they're overreacting. It's not all magic
that's bad anyway. It's dark magicrack, not some version of weed.
Is it a ham-handed ep? Yeah. But it seems in character to me for
Willow to go for it with Rack, scary-ass looking dude or not.
She's a powerful witch now and she's gonna show that she's not
scared of anything to Amy (and , by implication, show Tara she's
wrong about magic being bad for her). In any case, I don't think
a slower, more subtle approach would have stopped the objections
to the storyline because, as you say, it would be a killjoy anti-drug-
fanatic Message to many viewers no matter what.
As for the cop-out, it's always going to be a point of contention.
She seemed truly unsympathetic to me when she was threatening
Giles and mindwiping Tara. Plus, if you listen to what she says
in Something Blue about not having had the guts to kill Veruca,
it's fairly chilling even then. No moral qualms, just thinks she
didn't have the guts.
Also, all the stuff she said and did to Buffy and the other Scoobs
in Two To Go came from her, her resentments, her insecurities.
The dark magic didn't make say and do those things, her despair
and self-hatred did. But, for the Scoobs, it's important that
the magicrack explanation is there.
The problem with going with those other options I suggested was
how to bring her back. Two other characters went dark and it's
instructive to look at how that was handled. Angel had an out.
Angelus did it. His return was painful, but possible, although
his relations with Giles were forever strained and Xander hated
him even more. Faith didn't have an out. She did it. No force
pushed her or mitigated what she did. She ended up alienated from
everyone and went to jail. Her redemption took years and that's
appropriate and realistic.
If you go the Faith route and it's all on Willow, she's not coming
back from that any time soon, if ever. If Joss wanted her to flay
Warren and try to kill the other Scoobs without any excuses, then
her redemption is going to be as long and as hard as Faith's.
The Scoobs can't excuse her actions as brought about by dark forces
perverting her grief. If a truly unsympathetic Willow did it,
then saying she's sorry won't cut it. It's jail, or leaving Sunnydale,
plus alienation from Dawn probably forever and maybe from Buffy
and Giles too.
For me, the approach ME took was so that they could explore the
unsympathetic side of Willow without the necessity of exiling
a major character from the show when the arc was done, or having
to spend most of the next season rehabilitating her. If that's
a cop-out, I can live with it. Willow's a major reason I loved
the show.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Drugs and evil-ish Willow -- KdS,
07:15:47 09/17/03 Wed
On the drug issue, they did make it more subtle (pretty much orthodox
AA/NA "you have an addictive personality and must avoid all
mood-altering substances") after the return of Tara in Older,
but by that time the damage done by the crudity of Wrecked
was too severe. I have this idea that you still think of me as
some kind of starry-eyed legalise-everything libertarian, which
I'm not. I'm perfectly aware drug addiction is a problem, but
I think that if you are going to have an effect that isn't counter-productive,
you need to accept that drug abuse is due to the interaction between
the individual person and the individual drug and that some people
can use certain substances without abusing them while others can't.
I'll hastily add that there's a long spectrum between, say, caffeine,
which a tiny minority of people have major problems with, to,
say, opiates, which a large proportion of people end up in the
gutter from. Also, as Celebaelin says, there are substances like
ecstasy which some people have unpredictable lethal responses
to. But nowadays I think most people are capable of accepting
that there is not one thing called "drugs", and if you
try to tell kids that if they touch "drugs" they'll
die instantly or end in the gutter, they will stop believing you
and ignore all more sensible warnings as soon as they see someone
use a drug and not die or be in the gutter. I'll also add that
I don't use any substances myself except alcohol at times, but
that's mostly because I did some organic synthesis as a student
and as a result am very reluctant to touch any substance that's
been made by criminals. Probably the best way I can clarify is
to look at the other significant portrayal of drug addiction in
a recent SF/fantasy series, the mini-arc involving Franklin's
very unmetaphorical addiction to pep shots in Babylon 5.
Now that one followed the inevitable experimentation-addiction-recovery
trajectory, but it did so over a sufficient length of time and
with sufficient depth that it didn't attract the venom Wrecked
did. As I recall, some people felt that the whole idea of a drug
addiction subplot was too soapy and just not what interested them,
but nothing beyond that. And the reason was that it created a
believable fictional substance (with obvious resonances with real-world
substances) and showed his addiction developing over a medium
term, that it showed his own psychological issues and the effects
of the drug combining to create the abuse and dependency, it didn't
just have the idea of the all-evil all-powerful substance that
inevitably sends everyone to hell after one shot.
For me, the approach ME took was so that they could explore
the unsympathetic side of Willow without the necessity of exiling
a major character from the show when the arc was done, or having
to spend most of the next season rehabilitating her. If that's
a cop-out, I can live with it. Willow's a major reason I loved
the show.
From my point of view, the problem was not that they "explored
Willow's unsympathetic side", but that they put a importance
on the plot that it couldn't sustain without some form of cop-out.
You assume in your post above that any of the non-drug-metaphor
routes would have ended exactly the same way with Warren killing
Tara and driving Willow berserk. My feeling is that we have an
example here of the failings that can happen when you conceive
a story just to have the opportunity of writing some big scene.
My impression of S6 is that ME really, really, wanted to have
a season-ender that involved Buffy and Willow fighting it out
because it would be cool. Therefore all the exploring of Willow's
negative side. Now any of the other ways of exploring it didn't
have to go so far. There are any number of places along the alternative
paths to have Willow stepping back from the abyss. But the path
that they explored between Tough Love and Tabula Rasa,
if they wanted to take it far enough to have Willow as the Big
Bad, could only end with Willow being killed as she tried to take
over the world, convinced to her last breath that she was creating
heaven on earth and that the others had turned against her out
of jealousy or small-minded inability to comprehend her plan.
And at some point I think this was realised, so we had the sudden
handbrake turn of Wrecked from Willow abusing power to
rewrite the world and her friends according to her whims to Willow
abusing drugs to escape altogether from reality. So they got their
desired FX-driven Buffy/Willow smackdown, but at the cost of a
plotline which struck most of the audience as incredibly heavy-handed
and unnatural. And I don't know what you think, but I think they
had problems rehabilitating Willow anyway.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Wonderful analysis in the second
paragraph. -- Sophist, 08:59:55 09/17/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Excellent analysis -- dmw,
09:45:27 09/17/03 Wed
we have an example here of the failings that can happen when
you conceive a story just to have the opportunity of writing some
big scene.
I agree--that's the root of the problems with the story.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Agreed -- celticross, 10:03:36
09/17/03 Wed
For me, it wasn't the drugs metaphor per se that turned me off,
it was the sense that something deeper was being ignored. It's
one thing for a storyline to twist - you think you know where
it's going, and to your surprise, it ends up somewhere else. BtVS
has pulled this off maybe times. But a good twist always has the
seeds there beforehand, so that when you look back you realize
it *was* coming, you just weren't expecting it. Willow's transformation
into Junkie Willow didn't have those seeds, and that's why Season
6 post-Wrecked frequently feels so off.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Drugs and evil-ish Willow
-- RJA, 12:15:54 09/17/03 Wed
My impression of S6 is that ME really, really, wanted to have
a season-ender that involved Buffy and Willow fighting it out
because it would be cool
To an extent you are right, that they plotted the season to get
to a certain bunch of scenes (they did the same in season seven).
According to the Season Six DVD commentary, the scenes that they
had planned all year long (some even from late Season 5). These
were 'your shirt', i.e. Tara dying; DMW sucking the magic from
the Books; DMW v Buffy; and DMW v Giles. So everything in Willow's
storyline that year was essentially to get to those scenes.
However, I dont think there was any left turn from Wrecked onwards
to ensure that. Certainly, there were hints for this from the
beginning of the season (Flooded Giles-Willow scene was meant
to explicitly foreshadow Grave).
Aside from that, I do think that all the seeds for Willow's addiction
had been laid in the past, and that it is possible to see a continuity
with Willow's actions from Wrecked on back to season 3 at least.
You say that the pre-Wrecked arc was Willow using magic to reshape
things to her liking on a whim, including her family and friends.
And I think this is completely correct. And this to an extent
is a desire for power. But a deeper meaning behind this desire
for power is an unhappiness with reality, both for herself and
the world. The question is whether Willow wanted power to change
the world because she liked power for power's sake, or rather
she wanted that power because she wanted to obscure everything
that she didnt like about the world and herself. We know that
Willow has serious insecurity problems, apparent from WTTH. We
also know that being part of the Scoobies, and being a witch,
makes her feel better about herself, obscures the idea of loser
Willow (somthing explicit in Doppelgangland, Something Blue and
so on). Magic is a crutch to escape from her insecurities and
has always been that way for her.
And the same continues in Smashed/Wrecked - Amy plays on those
insecurities about *sad* Willow to go out and get Smashed.
Willow becomes addicted to magic not because it is inherently
addictive, but because she is more likely as a character to become
addicted to something (be it power or drugs, the spark is the
same). Many people turn to drugs because it gives them a sense
of control, as well as a way of escaping all that they dont like
about themselves. It gives them power in that they become a different
person. So I believe the spark for addiction, or wanting to become
power mad are essentially the same, if its done in an indepth
way (danger with the power route is if its a mwah hah hah had
Master way).
I think theres an entirely consistent path from Willow day one
to her addiction. Where there are problems are not in the plot
itself, but the execution. The crack house and shaking parallels
are bad not because of the concept, but because they are cliched
and cheesy, having been replicated too much in popular culture.
Essentially, I think its some lazy writing, but I dont think that
negates the concept itself.
Agree that they didnt rehabilitate her very well in season seven,
although I think thats not because they couldnt, but because they
didnt try hard enough.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> The three faces of Willow
(in S6) -- Sophist, 13:33:02 09/17/03 Wed
I do think that all the seeds for Willow's addiction had been
laid in the past, and that it is possible to see a continuity
with Willow's actions from Wrecked on back to season 3 at least.
I saw 3 entirely different Willows in S6: the Willow who grew
too powerful too fast and became arrogant; the Willow who was
addicted to a previously unknown drug called "magic";
and the Willow who lost her reason in grief and rage at Tara's
death. I have no idea which one of these, if any, you claim to
see in previous seasons, but I don't see any of them. While I
can see Willow no. 1 as a plausible change in her previously established
character, mirroring the changes others experience in life as
they confront the issues of early adulthood, or Willow no. 3 as
reflecting what might happen to any of us, the real issue is Willow
no. 2.
I think KdS is objecting to this Willow on 2 grounds:
1. The supposedly addictive quality of magic feels like an ad
hoc solution to an extraneous problem -- that is, one outside
the storyline -- rather than a natural development of the show's
mythology.
2. The extraneous problem appears to have been the concern that
making Willow the Big Bad of the season would destroy her character
for S7.
If KdS is right, and I strongly believe he is, then the show failed
on 2 fronts: it stretched for a storyline rather than let the
narrative flow naturally; and it failed (as you agree) to rehabilitate
Willow for S7, thereby undercutting the only reason for adopting
the artificial and unnecessary plot.
If I understand correctly, your response to this is contained
in this sentence:
Willow becomes addicted to magic not because it is inherently
addictive, but because she is more likely as a character to become
addicted to something
The problem is, this suggests that any "substance"
might be addictive. This just isn't true. If it were, based on
what we saw in S6, Willow might well have been addicted to bottled
water. Aside from the fact that magic is not a "substance",
nothing in the show's history suggests that doing a spell might
cause someone to crave doing more spells. Magic must be
inherently addictive in order for the plot to cohere, yet it clearly
was not so understood on the show at any other time.
Lastly, there is the related problem of whether Willow's "addiction"
to magic is somehow consistent with her previous character. You
suggest that
Magic is a crutch to escape from her insecurities and has always
been that way for her
Clearly you don't mean this for S1 or S2, since she never performed
a spell until the very end of S2. The issue is, then, S3-5.
The problem I have with this is that no one in S3 treated her
magic use in such a way as to suggest that they valued it and
therefore her (which is what I take a "crutch" to accomplish).
Willow performed very few spells in S3, and none were critical
to the season or to her relationship to the SG in that season.
In S4, she did start to perform more spells, but those spells
took her away from the SG. Oz didn't want her to do them
(Fear Itself). Giles cautioned her against them. Buffy criticized
her as not very effective (Fear Itself). Willow herself denigrated
her magic ability (Something Blue). If magic was intended to alleviate
her insecurities, it's hard to see how or why it did so. Except
for Primeval, only with Tara did we see her use magic in such
a way that we might think magic enhanced her self-esteem. And
there the show was clearly using magic as a metaphor for lesbian
sex, not for Willow's insecurities.
I think your whole argument must rest on S5. Here, while I wouldn't
deny that your interpretation is one valid way of seeing Willow's
magic use in S5, it certainly wasn't mine at the time.
In summary, the addiction storyline does not appear consistent
with magic use previously on the show, is not consistent with
Willow's established character, was introduced in an effort to
avoid the natural storyline consequences of S6, and failed at
its intended goal. Biggest mistake ME ever made.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The three faces
of Willow (in S6) -- RJA, 14:47:06 09/17/03 Wed
>I saw 3 entirely different Willows in S6: While I can see
Willow no. 1 as a plausible change in her previously established
character, mirroring the changes others experience in life as
they confront the issues of early adulthood, or Willow no. 3 as
reflecting what might happen to any of us, the real issue is Willow
no. 2.
I do agree that these are three different phases for Willow, yet
at the same time I think these are essentially three different
faces of the same person, or at least having routes in the same
character trait.
I would also argue that if DMW is something that reflects what
could happen to any of us, then its not huge stretch to see Willow
no 2 in a similar way.
1. The supposedly addictive quality of magic feels like an
ad hoc solution to an extraneous problem -- that is, one outside
the storyline -- rather than a natural development of the show's
mythology.
My contention is that magic in itself is not addictive. If in
itself it not addictive, then there is no contradiction with how
its used in Wrecked and how its used before.
If I understand correctly, your response to this is contained
in this sentence:
Willow becomes addicted to magic not because it is inherently
addictive, but because she is more likely as a character to become
addicted to something
You are correct.
The problem is, this suggests that any "substance"
might be addictive. This just isn't true. If it were, based on
what we saw in S6, Willow might well have been addicted to bottled
water. Aside from the fact that magic is not a "substance",
nothing in the show's history suggests that doing a spell might
cause someone to crave doing more spells. Magic must be inherently
addictive in order for the plot to cohere, yet it clearly was
not so understood on the show at any other time.
Well, I dont think its quite the case that bottled water would
be an adequate replacement for magic (although to be honest, I
know of someone who will not face a difficult situatio without
a bottle of water or they will vomit. AndI'm not even joking).
What I meant by this was that Willow didnt become an addict because
the magic itself was inherently addictive. There are different
types of addictions - there's the crack, nicotine, heroine type
of addiction. And then there's the alcohol, gambling etc addiction.
The first is purely physical, in that there is something within
the substance that gets the user hooked. The second type of addiction
depends on the constitution of the user. Most people who drink
alcohol dont get addicted. Some do. And this, I believe, is the
type of addiction that Willow had. A psychological one, rather
than physical.
Which is why I think its essentially the flipside to seeking power.
Someone who wants power and gets out of control with it is really
very little different to a person who ends up an alcoholic. Essentially,
the reason either ends up in that situation is the same. Insecurity
and a need to change that (broadly speaking that is). There was
a character flaw within Willow which she couldnt deal with. So
maic was a solution. And she couldnt do without it. We know she
was addicted early season six (when challenged by Tara). And would
she have considered that she had a problem if she hadnt lost Tara?
Did her addiction begin with a trip to Rack's, or was that when
she, and others, acknowledged she had an addiction? And if it
was the latter, which I think it was, then it was purely pyschological,
in which case magic isnt inherently addictive, and so not in contradiction
to the past 6 years.
Lastly, there is the related problem of whether Willow's "addiction"
to magic is somehow consistent with her previous character. You
suggest that
Magic is a crutch to escape from her insecurities and has always
been that way for her
Clearly you don't mean this for S1 or S2, since she never performed
a spell until the very end of S2. The issue is, then, S3-5.
Correct, my bad. But I do think her issues for using magic date
back to WTTH
The problem I have with this is that no one in S3 treated her
magic use in such a way as to suggest that they valued it and
therefore her (which is what I take a "crutch" to accomplish).
Willow performed very few spells in S3, and none were critical
to the season or to her relationship to the SG in that season.
In S4, she did start to perform more spells, but those spells
took her away from the SG. Oz didn't want her to do them (Fear
Itself). Giles cautioned her against them. Buffy criticized her
as not very effective (Fear Itself). Willow herself denigrated
her magic ability (Something Blue). If magic was intended to alleviate
her insecurities, it's hard to see how or why it did so. Except
for Primeval, only with Tara did we see her use magic in such
a way that we might think magic enhanced her self-esteem. And
there the show was clearly using magic as a metaphor for lesbian
sex, not for Willow's insecurities.
The question behind that would be, why then, Willow pursues an
interest and dedication to magic? She would be one of the few
people around to actively pursue something which makes them feel
bad about themselves. I really doubt that Willow's interest in
magic wasnt to increase her status, her self worth, her sense
of self. All of which would make her feel better about herself.
By being good at magic, she becomes special, worth something,
rather than 'plain old Willow@'. Instead, she is Willow the wicca.
Interesting that you use Something Blue as an example, since ultimately
it shows that Willow is a very powerful user of magic. She just
hasnt mastered it yet. And all the times it has gone wrong, she
still wants to pursue it. Why? I dont think the answer is dedication
to the fight against evil somehow.
Just to go back to the original point. I think that Willow suffered
a severe lack of self esteem. Magic was something which counter
acted that (see Doppelgangland in which she sues magic as a direct
way to cast aside what people thought of her). She basicaly liked
using magic because the more she did, the more people stopped
thinking of her as the softer side of sears Willow. Instead, she
became something. So already an attempt to obscure er true self.
Changing the world and her friends stems from that. If you learn
that magic can change what you dont like about yourself, then
why not others? (and its important that her two big spells in
season six are about stopping others know of her weaknesses, or
dealing with them). So it becomes a crutch. Tara recognises this
and leaves (and one could argue that Tara was to some extent another
crutch, something which made her feel self worth). So without
that, Willow turned to the only thing that made her feel good
about herself, magic. And around the same time people noticed
her dependence on this. She didnt become an addict in Wrecked,
as far as I'm concerned. Was one before.
And so she gives up, with the implicit promise she can get back
the other thing that makes her life worth living, and makes her
feel good about herself - Tara. And Tara dies, so where to look
to? That old prop magic. Hello DMW.
I know I'm in a tiny minority here, but I truly see her arc as
consistent and logical, and I also dont believe I reached to find
that. It was natural, but not what people expected (like I say,
perhaps more the execution than the concept). And perhaps if Tara
hadnt of left, or Amy hadnt come back, Willow would have gone
down the power route. The road untaken, but all possibilities.
Apologies for the long post, but I guess that means I have overcome
my ATPoBtVS shyness!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The three
faces of Willow (in S6) -- Sophist, 17:06:59 09/17/03 Wed
And this, I believe, is the type of addiction that Willow had.
A psychological one, rather than physical.
I think your best analogy is to gambling. As I said, and as I
think you agree, magic is not a substance which might have addictive
properties. It's more like an act which might provide a thrill
perhaps.
I have several problems with this. First, the description of gambling
as an addiction seems more like an analogy than an actual effect.
However, since the nature of addiction is so poorly understood,
I won't insist on this point now.
That said, it remains true that there must be some aspect of gambling,
as opposed to, say, solving crossword puzzles, that causes us
to describe someone who gambles as "addicted" but not
to use that term about a puzzle solver. This means there must
be some inherently addictive aspect of gambling that does not
exist for other activities. I therefore can't agree that magic
need not be inherently addictive; I see that as required in order
for the addiction metaphor to make any sense at all.
The other 2 problems are these: magic, unlike gambling, is highly
valuable to the SG and has effects on others besides the "user";
as I said, nothing in the show prior to Wrecked ever suggested
that doing one spell could create "cravings" to do another.
why then, Willow pursues an interest and dedication to magic?
To me the answer is obvious, though you reject it: Willow pursued
magic because she was dedicated to the fight against evil and
this was the best contribution she could make. This strikes me
as far more psychologically plausible, and far better supported
within the confines of the show (e.g., Choices), than the suggestion
that she used magic to overcome her "insecurities".
I think that Willow suffered a severe lack of self esteem
I'm not sure what to make of this. At some level, this is certainly
not true. For example, Willow clearly never suffered lack of self-esteem
regarding her computer hacking ability. Nor did she about her
intellectual achievements.
I do agree that she lacked self-esteem, but I see that lack as
specific: she lacked self-esteem regarding her physical attractiveness
to others. She knew (because Cordy told her so) that she dressed
unfashionably, and she knew that boys generally were not attracted
to her.
To make the argument that magic compensated for these specific
insecurities, I'd have to see that, for example, magic somehow
made her more attractive to Oz or caused her to dress better.
The latter never happened (well, maybe in S6 -- some pretty hot
leather pants there!). Nor did she take up magic in order to attract
Oz -- that happened before she ever did a single spell.
In Wrecked, Willow says that magic made her attractive to Tara.
Sure, though she had been doing magic for over a year before she
met Tara and clearly didn't use it for that purpose. I find it
troubling that the magic/lesbian metaphor in S4 suddenly becomes
an addiction metaphor in S6, which is what we'd have to believe
if "insecurity" drove Willow's magic use. That would
put S4 in a whole new, and very unfavorable, light.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The
three faces of Willow (in S6) -- RJA, 18:18:16 09/17/03
Wed
I think your best analogy is to gambling. As I said, and as
I think you agree, magic is not a substance which might have addictive
properties. It's more like an act which might provide a thrill
perhaps.
I have several problems with this. First, the description of gambling
as an addiction seems more like an analogy than an actual effect.
However, since the nature of addiction is so poorly understood,
I won't insist on this point now.
Ah well, I know nothing about gambling addictions, so who can
say? But I see alcolholism as a more apt description, and while
it may be poorly understood, this is part of my reading behind
Willow's arc to some extent.
That said, it remains true that there must be some aspect of
gambling, as opposed to, say, solving crossword puzzles, that
causes us to describe someone who gambles as "addicted"
but not to use that term about a puzzle solver. This means there
must be some inherently addictive aspect of gambling that does
not exist for other activities. I therefore can't agree that magic
need not be inherently addictive; I see that as required in order
for the addiction metaphor to make any sense at all.
Depends what we mean by 'inherently'. I took it to mean something
which if done or taken would ultimately ensure that someone would
be addicted. Whereas I think that drinking or gambling or certain
drugs wouldnt.
The other 2 problems are these: magic, unlike gambling, is
highly valuable to the SG and has effects on others besides the
"user"; .
But if it was so valuable to the Scooby gang, why did you say
abov they didnt encourage or appreciate it?
To me the answer is obvious, though you reject it: Willow pursued
magic because she was dedicated to the fight against evil and
this was the best contribution she could make. This strikes me
as far more psychologically plausible, and far better supported
within the confines of the show (e.g., Choices), than the suggestion
that she used magic to overcome her "insecurities".
Well, I think that our answers combine somewhat. I really doubt
that Willow's soul motivation to do magic was for the common good.
She's not a martyr, and there is a lot of evidnce that she did
it for less than noble reasons. So given the idea that there was
something in it for her (and as I say, how many people take up
something which doesnt benefit them - I find it hard to believe
Willow is that altruistc).
I'm not sure what to make of this. At some level, this is certainly
not true. For example, Willow clearly never suffered lack of self-esteem
regarding her computer hacking ability. Nor did she about her
intellectual achievements.
Indeed, and she didnt always lack self esteem about her magical
ablities. Yet that doesnt mean she was convinced in her self worth
as a person. We see that in WTTH. Computer literate, yet hardly
confident.
I do agree that she lacked self-esteem, but I see that lack
as specific: she lacked self-esteem regarding her physical attractiveness
to others. She knew (because Cordy told her so) that she dressed
unfashionably, and she knew that boys generally were not attracted
to her.
I see it as further than that, I think it also relates to her
social status (hence why she cant understand why a girl
would talk to her, let alone a boy. And why Percy's comments that
hurt her in season four were about her being nerd, but not unattractive
To make the argument that magic compensated for these specific
insecurities, I'd have to see that, for example, magic somehow
made her more attractive to Oz or caused her to dress better.
The latter never happened (well, maybe in S6 -- some pretty hot
leather pants there!). Nor did she take up magic in order to attract
Oz -- that happened before she ever did a single spell.
Well we have a fundamental disagreement about what her issues
were. I dont think it was about being attractive, but about being
cool, about being worth something. She even speaks about Oz in
season three as some trophy to an extent (I'm dating a musician).
She doesnt do magic to attract Oz. I think to some extent she
liked going out with musician becase it made her cool (and there
is evidnece in the show for that). Just like magic did. Both (as
well as Tara) went some way to making her feel special and worthwhile,
issues that went way beyond being attractive to someone.
In Wrecked, Willow says that magic made her attractive to Tara.
Sure, though she had been doing magic for over a year before she
met Tara and clearly didn't use it for that purpose. I find it
troubling that the magic/lesbian metaphor in S4 suddenly becomes
an addiction metaphor in S6, which is what we'd have to believe
if "insecurity" drove Willow's magic use. That would
put S4 in a whole new, and very unfavorable, light.
Magic didnt attract Tara to her, but its significant Willow thought
it did. She was so far down the line that she only thought she
was of interest if she was powerful. It doesnt put season four
in a nasty light at all, unless we believe in the sanctity of
love. But I think that the idea that,as well a loving Tara deeply,
being loved made her feel worthy and made her fel special is still
something to be respected, and the idea that love is altruistc
is just too high a standard to keep.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
The three faces of Willow (in S6) -- Sophist, 18:50:20
09/17/03 Wed
I think we've reached the stage where we can identify our disagreements
but not resolve them. I'll just respond to one point:
But if it was so valuable to the Scooby gang, why did you say
abov they didnt encourage or appreciate it?
I should have made this point more clearly. S4 was the real beginning
of Willow's magic use. Her spells in S3 were rare and minor; they
hardly affected the plot at all. The critical comments really
came at the beginning of her expanded magic use in S4. Her friends
discouraged her deeper delving, but she continued anyway. When
she succeeded later on, she received high praise for her skill
and her magic use became integral to the show, so much so that
she became arguably more powerful than Buffy. In fact, I've always
believed that the MagiCrack arc was introduced not only to solve
the problem of Willow's rehabilitation (didn't succeed), but to
eliminate the competition with Buffy -- who needs a slayer when
Willow can make the problem go poof? At least the MagiCrack did
solve that structural problem.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The three faces
of Willow (in S6) -- shambleau, 15:34:35 09/17/03 Wed
I disagree with your premise that it was necessary for the Scoobs
to value her contributions for magic to be a crutch to her self-esteem.
In fact, her place in the Scoobie heirarchy cemented her in the
geeky sidekick role. In Dopplegangland, it was Anya's appeal to
her reputation as a badass wicca that sucked in Willow. She beamed
when Anya said that. No more reliable dog geyser person for her!
We see the rebellion in Fear Iself, too. "I'm not your sidekick"
comes just a little after Buffy has, as you say, denigrated her
magic abilities, and she's insisted that her spell is the way
to get them out of the house. In both cases, magic is a way out
of her place in the group. So the fact that magic takes her away
from the SG is precisely its appeal. Denigrating her magic ability
in Something Blue is because she's frustrated that she can't use
magic skillfully enough to make herself feel better. In other
words, she can't use the crutch as well as she'd like.
When Tara is in awe of Willow's magical abilities in Hush, we
again see that beaming smile. Her comment about having something
that's "just mine" to Tara, in WAY, I believe, is also
an indication that having an adoring partner who doesn't see her
the way the Scoobs do is part of Tara's appeal for her.
Besides, running a pencil through a vampire who's trying to kill
you, instead of relying on Buffy to save you, has inherent value
to your self-esteem, as does being called on to break the protective
spell around the Box of Gravlok.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Very good points
-- RJA, 15:53:02 09/17/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Drugs and evil-ish
Willow -- Celebaelin, 17:39:34 09/17/03 Wed
The question is whether Willow wanted power to change the world
because she liked power for power's sake, or rather she wanted
that power because she wanted to obscure everything that she didnt
like about the world and herself.
No it isn't (IMO). The question is "Will the power that Willow
has, and chooses to exploit, affect the reality we live in in
ways she doesn't anticipate because of her manipulation
of cause and effect?" Buffy died but Willow (primarily) brought
her back. Willow continued to use magic as a convenient tool contrary
to Tara's advice. In the end, possibly because of this, Tara died
and Willow couldn't bring her back, no-one could, how did Willow
respond?
Giles knew the risks fromthepoint we met him, from my POV it's
implied that he said so and that Willow ignored him, she certainly
did later. I would argue that we consistently see his fears of
the consequnces of magical intervention confirmed. From Giles'
POV if Willow can remain rational then her own personal views
are broadly irrelevant. Some hope! Not if Willow is Spirit!
But the truth is that she is indeed a (powerful) 'arrogant, rank
amateur', and if she lets go? Well, something will have to be
done, like leaving it to some-one else it seems.
C (Who clearly thinks RG is the font of all knowledge and can
do no wrong)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Drugs and evil-ish
Willow -- dmw, 05:56:38 09/18/03 Thu
Giles is frustratingly vague about the nature of those consequences.
If he had mentioned that, by the way, magic is as addictive as
crack, someone might have had a reason to listen to him. On the
other hand, the Scoobies, especially during season 5 and at some
points in seasons 6-7, are Willow's enablers, encouraging her
to give in to her addiction because they need magic for some reason.
Especially during season 5, Giles certainly doesn't object or
even offer any alternatives to Willow's magic in dealing with
Glory.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The allure
of Buffyverse magic -- Celebaelin, 09:14:25 09/18/03 Thu
I would interpret the Buffyverse rationale in this way.
If the consequences were predictable then the use of magic would
not be so dangerous. It is a question of the universe maintaining
its' own balance. You could say that there is a price to pay but
that implies that the bill can be waived. But the universe cannot
write off the bill for manipulating cause and effect any more
than gravity can decide not to make an object accelerate in the
direction of the operating gravitational field. D'Hoffryn's imposition
of the death of Hallie is a curiosity to me in this regard as
it seems he has some control over the method in which balance
is restored. Maybe because he knows the price that must be payed
he gets to choose the payee?
I don't think magic is addictive per se but it is extremely seductive,
compulsive even. To be able to solve all your problems that easily
is very tempting. We even have a phrase for it, 'as if by magic'.
Giles certainly doesn't object or even offer any alternatives
to Willow's magic in dealing with Glory
Apocalypse on a pan dimesional scale may be considered exceptional
circumstances, and the magics used were in any event largely restorative
of the balance and unselfish, which seems to me to be relevant
somehow in terms of the consequences.
Giles demonstrates his fears and caution regarding the use of
magic basically by not using it where practicable and frowning
on both its' frivolous or ill-considered use and its' overuse.
As does Tara. We see this time and again in All The Way. Since
Willow is obviously not obtuse, except deliberately, we must be
intended to assume that she is simply ignoring the messages of
people who know more about magic than she does, even if they do
not have the sorcerious raw talent that Willow has.
As concerns various other addiction paralells it is possible to
use a substance or exhibit a form of behaviour that may become
habit forming either psychologically or physiologically without
being addicted. Ultimately these options are indistinguishable
because of changes in body chemistry, adrenalin, endorphins etc.
and other factors, the oral contact of smoking cw eating or kissing
say. By addicted here I mean dependent, unable to function without
recourse to. Which interestingly implies that you can become addicted
to people, some people should certainly carry a health warning,
S6 Willow being by no means the least in this regard.
C
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Drugs and
evil-ish Willow -- celticross, 10:22:17 09/18/03 Thu
"Especially during season 5, Giles certainly doesn't object
or even offer any alternatives to Willow's magic in dealing with
Glory."
But that's why a lot of people, myself included, have such a problem
with the Willow as junkie storyline. Up until Season 6, magic
had never been presented as a substance or activity one could
become physically addicted to. It was dangerous, yes, but one
had to be careful one was not connecting with dark energies, or
doing magic for the wrong reasons. The issue of addiction was
never a part of the presentation of magic on the show. That's
why it felt like such a left turn. To me, Willow the junkie didn't
feel like the natural outgrowth of the story.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Drugs and evil-ish Willow
-- shambleau, 18:19:03 09/17/03 Wed
Sorry if I gave the impression that I think of you in a certain
way. I actually agree 100% with you on how drug dependency generally
works. I was trying to make the point that "some" people
have an allergic reaction to anything that hints of anti-drug
moralism. I saw the ep heavily mocked on other boards as being
essentially a clone of "Reefer Madness". That was, to
me, an overreaction. I wasn't referring to you or anyone here
necessarily. Your argument simply reminded me of those attacks.
A very specific kind of magic was being shown. That it was instantly
addictive doesn't bother me any more than the Buffybot does. Neither
instant magicrack addiction, advanced robots or geeks who can
loop time exist. Since I saw it as a way to resolve how to bring
Willow back from the edge, it didn't have the implication to me
that this is how real-life addiction works and I seriously doubt
that anyone at ME was asserting that. From what I understand,
a number of ME writers have had substance abuse problems at one
time, so they're perfectly aware of how it works. They saw it
as a plot-device and seriously underestimated the reaction.
To me, they'd built up enough hints that magic could hurt you.
They're there from Giles's comments about magic highs and opening
doors you won't be able to close, through Willow's headaches and
nosebleeds to her eyes turning black when she used the Darkest
Magicks book to fight Glory. So, I didn't feel that Wrecked was
a sudden hand brake turn so much as a possible way they could
go that they had already set up. And, by the way, it disappointed
me at the time.
I don't know when they decided to go that way, so it's plausible
that, at some point, they figured out that the path Willow was
on through Tabula Rasa led to death and came up with the alternate
approach they did use. I hardly think it would have taken them
til Tabula Rasa to tweak to that, though. Which is why I think
it was planned for a lot longer than you do.
I agree that there's a danger in having a long-term goal that
you then have to adjust your plotline to. They'd gotten away with
making Faith and Angel into Big Bads because they thought it would
be cool, though, so I think it's perfectly possible to get great
dividends from that approach.
As for rehabilitating Willow, yeah, it wasn't that successful,
but it would have been worse with arrogant, power-mad Willow.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Consistency and Power
-- dmw, 13:01:40 09/18/03 Thu
That it was instantly addictive doesn't bother me any more
than the Buffybot does. Neither instant magicrack addiction, advanced
robots or geeks who can loop time exist.
The problem for me is consistency. I'm a scientist, but the existence
of a transporter on Star Trek doesn't bother me; what bothers
me is that it's shown to be capable of solving a particular problem
in one episode, but then the crew can't deal with a problem that's
obviously solvable in the same manner in a later episode. In fact,
it's too powerful, capable of dealing with too many problems they
want the crew to face, so the writers deal with or ignore its
power in an inconsistent manner.
That's exactly what BtVS has done with Willow. Willow's magical
capabilities expanded to such an extent that they overshadowed
Buffy's abilities as slayer, so the show suddenly introduced magic
addiction in s6 (which also had the important feature of keeping
Willow redeemable in their view) and then kept her scared of using
some of the time in s7 while allowing her to use without consequence
at other points to suit the plot on an episode by episode basis.
If the possibility of magic addiction had been brought up in previous
seasons, it wouldn't have bothered me, but the sudden change in
the nature of magic in Wrecked completely jolted me out of my
suspension of disbelief. I couldn't have been more surprised if
gravity had stopped working in the Buffyverse.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Consistency and
Power -- shambleau, 19:24:31 09/18/03 Thu
It still seems to me that it wasn't a change in the nature of
magic as much as the introduction of a specific type of dark magic.
Giles had already encountered a type of dark magic which gave
him a high. I don't see why it's that big a leap to another kind
that's instantly addictive. Giles might not have mentioned it
because it was rare and/ or he didn't think some one like Willow
needed to be told.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Giles did not
say that magic gave him a 'high' -- Sophist, 20:37:26 09/18/03
Thu
The episode was The Dark Age. Here's the dialogue (quote from
Buffyworld):
Giles: Yes. One of us would, um... (nervously pours a drink)
go into a deep sleep, and the others would, uh, summon him. It
was an extraordinary high!
It wasn't the use of magic -- the "high" came from either
(a) the act of summoning the demon, or (more likely) (b) the possession
of the sleeper by Eyghon. In the latter case, you find similar
expressions by Jesse in WttH and by Webs in CwDP.
dmw is right: the magic/drugs analogy first appears in S6.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Period of Time -- Claudia,
11:17:42 09/18/03 Thu
[Probably the best way I can clarify is to look at the other significant
portrayal of drug addiction in a recent SF/fantasy series, the
mini-arc involving Franklin's very unmetaphorical addiction to
pep shots in Babylon 5. Now that one followed the inevitable experimentation-addiction-recovery
trajectory, but it did so over a sufficient length of time and
with sufficient depth that it didn't attract the venom Wrecked
did.]
Your statement seemed to hint that Willow's misuse of powers did
not develop over a period of time. Yet, if you go back over the
old episodes, you can see that her insecurity was something that
was first revealed in Season 1. Even in Seasons 2 and 3, she seemed
to use Oz as a way of bolstering her own ego and how people perceive
her. How many times has she pointed out that she was "dating
a musician and how cool was that"? By late Season 2, she
began exploring witchcraft. And her misuse of magic was first
hinted in Season 3 - at least three years before it all came crashing
down in Season 6. That's over twice the amount of time it took
for Dr. Franklin's stims problems to develop in BABYLON 5. And
Willow's recovery from her problems took slightly longer than
Franklin's - and was simply handled in a different way.
One could easily say that Willow's misuse of magic was long in
development. And when it finally caught up with her in early Season
6 - the other Scoobies simply dismissed it as an addiction that
could easily be fixed with Willow going "cold turkey".
It's obvious that they had seriously misunderstood how serious
her problem was; and from where that problem first took root.
What surprises me is that many fans (but not all) had easily accepted
the Scoobies' opinions on the whole matter and dismissed the arc
as some "ABC Afterschool Special" type of story on addiction.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Period of Time
-- dmw, 13:03:54 09/18/03 Thu
I don't think KdS is saying that Willow's misuse of magic didn't
develop over a period of time. KdS is saying that it's her addiction
that suddenly appeared. At least, that's how it reads to me.
[> [> [> [> List
2 -- Celebaelin, 14:59:07 09/15/03 Mon
Can I ask you to be more specific about why you are critical of
Beer Bad? Not the acting surely? I can see that you might think
the script a little erm underpowered in places but that's
integral to the plot and I found it an absolute pleasure.
Are there technical no nos that I'm unaware of?
[> [> [> [> [>
Oh... -- KdS, 15:02:23 09/15/03 Mon
There's the hominids as grunting thugs thing, which pisses me
off whenever I see it, there's the fact that the episode seems
to think that gratuitous female violence against men is funny,
but mostly it's because it's an allegedly comic episode and I
simply did not find it even faintly funny. Except for the Willow/Parker
scenes, which seemed to have slunk in from a different ep. Same
with Triangle
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Thanks -- Celebaelin, 15:16:26 09/15/03 Mon
For myself I thought it was uproariously funny, and even funnier
on a second viewing. Is Tracey Forbes a pseudonym do you think?
At any rate whoever the writer is has obviously supped an ale
or two from time to time.
Q. What's the difference between drinking and quaffing?
A. You spill more when you quaff.
[> [> [> [> Re:
There are two different lists here from my point of view:
-- RJA, 15:53:11 09/15/03 Mon
Hmmm, I think Wrecked can lay claim to the mos underated episode
of the show. Just not in the SFX list. It should wear its #40
position with pride.
[> [> [> [> Wrecked!
-- Masq, 16:19:37 09/15/03 Mon
That would be the fifth bad on my worst five list:
Where the Wild Things Are
I Was Made to Love You
Older and Far Away
Him
Wrecked
All prime examples of "How not to write a story".
[> [> [> [> [>
Five Worst . . . -- Claudia, 08:35:12 09/16/03 Tue
1. Doublemeat Palace
2. Where the Wild Things Are
3. As You Were
4. Becoming, Part 1
5. Beer Bad
[> [> [> Consensus?
What consensus? ;-) -- s'kat, 19:11:12 09/15/03 Mon
Is there one? From what I can tell people dislike BTVS episodes
for exactly the same reasons they dislike other things in cultural
media - it pushes their buttons, makes them cringe, or just turns
them off. And what turns off X may often turn on Y. And vice versa.
For instance:
I hated Storyteller, turned me off. Yet lots of People adore it.
On the other hand I actually liked Him - it made me laugh out
loud, so does Doublemeat Palace and Beer Bad in places. So while
people were laughing at Storyteller, I was cringing, and while
I was laughing at Him others were cringing. To say one person's
taste is more justified than anothers (NOT that anyone is doing
that, speaking GENERALLY
here, guys), is probably putting an unfair value judgement on
another's taste, especially when you have 0 idea why that person
has the taste they have at this precise moment in time.
There's only a few episodes of BTVS that I really can't bear or
have 0 interest in re-watching they are:
Storyteller
Teacher's Pet
As You Were
I Was Made To Love You
Doublemeat Palace (even though it made me laugh on the second
run)
Each episode for different reasons makes me cringe.
Then there are the episodes I can watch parts of but not other
parts:
Lies My PArents Told Me - while at times brilliant, has a negative
emotional effect on me, which makes me cringe.
So it maybe years before I can truly appreciate it, right now
in my current mindset? Can't really watch it again.
(Am curious to see what Drew Goddard, David Fury, DB Woodside
and James Marsters say about it in the DVD)
Seeing Red? Same problem - I can watch sections but not other
sections...too painful, cringe inducing, and it seems at times
way out of character for the show and for the shows heroine.
Wrecked - the magic as crack story just bugs me in that episode
As time passes - I change my mind. One year I love an episode,
the next hate it, the next don't care and am strangely ambivalent.
So I think lots of this may depend on frame of mind.
[> [> [> [> agreed,
-- shambleau, 21:30:59 09/15/03 Mon
Especially on the "as time passes" thing. There are
episodes I hated at the time that I now enjoy and others that
once delighted me that pretty much leave me cold. Also, memory's
a tricky thing. People generally arrived at a consensus on many
boards that S4 sucked. But when SFX started showing the reruns,
I remember people commenting that certain eps and even the season
in general were far better than they'd remembered. For me, Beer
Bad, for example, went from despised to enjoyable. The episodes
that I don't change my mind on much are the ones that dragged,
not the ones that got a strong negative reaction out of me.
I'd just recommend checking out the episodes you hated from time
to time and see if you still feel that way. You may be surprised.
[> [> [> [> Judging
from the responses to this thread, my '2 out of 5 rule' is holding
up. -- cjl, 22:37:08 09/15/03 Mon
As I said, nobody's going to dislike all five episodes I mentioned.
But so far, everybody has loathed at least two out of five. That's
about as close to a consensus as ATPo is ever going to get.
[> [> [> [> [>
Yes but look how many responded -- s'kat, 10:21:29 09/16/03
Tue
As Val and Celebalin point out - we need a lot more people to
vote to even begin to see what if any consensus exists.
Now I'll agree, most boards I've seen do this and most of the
lists I've seen do tend to consistently put these episodes at
the bottom:
Teacher's Pet
Wrecked
Beer Bad
There's some not much disagreement on:
WTWA
Bad Eggs
Ted
IWMTLY
DoubleMeat Palace
Triangle
Family
Go Fish
There's a love them or hate them response to:
As You Were (which has the distinction of either being in the
top 20 or the bottom 20 on many lists)
LMPTM (also either loved or hated)
Storyteller (okay most people love it, there's only 5 people I
can think of off hand who hate it...)
Amends
Seeing Red
Now these episodes people generally put in the top ten and are
more often than not voted in high places on the FX BTVS Thanksgiving
Marathon:
Fool For Love
Once More With Feeling
Hush
The Body
Becoming Part I&II
And even within those lists I'm sure there are fans lurking or
otherwise who are thinking, damn this is frustrating I love or
hate that episode! I feel sooo alone.
Hard marching to that different drummer. ;-)
[> [> [> [> Re:
Consensus? What consensus? ;-) -- Valheru, 00:36:16 09/16/03
Tue
I think the main problem I have with SFX's list is how it appears
to be a list of a single person's favorites. RJA mentioned something
about different SFX staffers rating eps from a certain season,
then they sort of combine them into one big list (sorry, don't
have the issue so I'm not entirely sure what's going on there).
But even so, it comes down to ONE person passing judgement on
any given episode. And to me, that's not so much a "Best
of..." list as it is a "Favorites" list.
I guess what I was expecting was more of a Consensus Vote. Something
like 5 SFX writers/editors/janitors evaluating each episode on
quality. Sure, they aren't going to agree on everything, but as
long as they're staying relatively objective (i.e., not grading
episodes based on their 'ship biases), they should be able to
come up with a somewhat agreeable list.
For example, I think it's safe to assume the Top 4 episodes are
OMWF, Restless, The Body, and Hush. We all might quibble on the
order, but these are nearly universally considered the Best of
the Best. Now if someone were to round out the Top 10 with (in
no particular order) Becoming I, Becoming II, Innocence, Graduation
Day I, Graduation Day II, The Gift, and FFL...I would think 95%
of the fans would be happy with that. Or we could substitute something
out to the #11-15 group for CWDP, Selfless, Superstar, Surprise,
or The Zeppo. Again, I think the vast majority could live quite
cheerily with such a list.
Now let's say that instead of FFL in the Top 10, someone puts
in one of those "if you love it, you really love it, but
if you hate it, you really hate it" episode. An episode like
Amends. Now I know a lot of people who hated Amends, mostly because
of two things: 1) too much Buffy/Angel angst, or 2) Miracle Snow.
But I also know a lot of people (myself included) who think it's
at least a Top 15 episode. Now if I were writing the list alone
and I put Amends at #8, I think there'd be a pretty large crowd
of fans out there who would scream, "You suck, sappy-boy!"
But if me and four (or seven, or twenty-six) other "reliable"
BtVS critiquers were to put Amends at #8, at least then we could
scream back to the anti-Amends crowd, "Yeah? Well you suck,
jaded know-nothing geeks!" with some semblance of integrity.
'Cuz maybe two of us hated Amends, but those two could at least
agree with the rest of us that it's an otherwise worthy Jossian
effort.
I guess what perturbs me about lists like the one SFX did is that
it makes itself out to be a studied approach, compiled by a generally-acknowledged
spot-on BtVS reviewer, and approved by a "reliable"
genre magazine editorial board. But really, it's just one guy's
personal faves of all 7 seasons-worth of episodes (or the personal
faves of one revieiwer per season, or whatever it was). So you
get things--What's My Line? being unusually high, Fear, Itself
being extremely low, and As You Were, Bad Eggs, and Him sitting
higher than Lie to Me, Pangs, and Checkpoint--things that don't
gel with averages from other lists. And hey, I have no problem
with people liking what I think are bad episodes, or hating what
I think are good ones, but at least if I do a list, I'm not going
to be paid for it and have the full support of a respected genre
magazine behind me (and it really makes you wonder what kind of
magazine would let someone compile a BtVS ranking who thinks As
You Were is better than 90 other episodes).
And I wouldn't even have much of a problem with it, except that
it is kind of misrepresentative of the show and the fans. As a
fan, I would be highly embarassed if, say, Steven Spielberg were
to pick up this issue and notice that the only episode he ever
saw--let's say it was BvD and he thought it was utter crap--was
sitting at #26. "That is the 26th best episode of
the series? What's the big deal with this show, then? All those
fans must be on funny juice."
Okay, now that all that's out of the way...you wanna go throw
eggs at the people who liked Storyteller and LMPTM? =)
[This post was voted #18 out of the 144 Best BtVS List Critiques
on the Internet by Billy "Squeaky" Wickel of Boise City,
Oklahoma. Any disagreements should be brought to the attention
of Horace McGriff of Boston, Massachussets, who voted this post
#6 of the 144 Worst BtVS Ranking Reviews on the Web. And if you
have a disagreement with Horace, the best advice is to run and
hope he doesn't know what you smell like.]
[> [> [> [> [>
Counting coup -- Celebaelin, 05:50:28 09/16/03 Tue
Including the negative comments touched on in the above post positions
1 (144) and 2 (143) swapped overnight. Actually they were equal
overnight but I gave a weighting on Masq's vote.
As is implied by Valheru we still need more (preferably a lot
more) posters to grit their teeth and decide which episodes they
would nominate for this dubious privilege.
There's a whole bunch tied on 4= (141=) at the moment.
C
[> [> [> [> [>
LOL! Actually I agreed with your post on this below --
s'kat, 10:07:07 09/16/03 Tue
I didn't respond to the post below b/c I realized that by doing
so I'd contradict my statements here, well sort of.
(And uhm look hypocritical...and we mustn't do that. LOL!)
Honestly? I read the SFX list a while ago on another board which
posted the entire list and some of the commentary from it... and
went WTF?? See Simon's post on Angel's Soul board, may still be
in the archives. (Also might be available on whedonesque.com where
Simon also posts). There's no clear rhyme or reason to this list
in my humble opinion. Is it that they prefer a certain style over
another style? One writer over another?
No, they have What's My Line up in the top ten and Wrecked in
the bottom ten. (Don't get me wrong, I love What's My Line, but
I wouldn't put it in the top 10) Are they a Fury lover? (Not sure...)
Their list basically lowered my opinion of the magazine and made
me think twice about purchasing it when and if it hits the B&N magazine
rack in the States. (Now I usually love SFX and how it analyzes
and does interviews on BTVS and ATS, it's very thorough, but this
list? Please. Obviously someone who casually watchs the show or
it's just their favorites. (If it is just some paid reviewers
favorites - then excuse me? Why is he being paid for them? What
qualifications does he have to list his favorites - over say a
far better listing made by a poll of SFX readers or fans?) No
serious Btvs watcher would have come up with this list. Either
that or the UK's version of BTVS is censored and more chopped
up than we know? No, can't be that, we have UK people on this
board who have said otherwise. ugh. See? I am a hypocrite, I'm
judging someone else's opinions after making such a nice speech
about not doing so. But in my defense - this person is getting
paid for their opinion -they are being paid to criticize and by
doing so asking us to judge them! I think it would bug me less
if it was just some fan's list on the internet as opposed to a
paid tv reviewer's. I expect more from the paid reviewer. ;-)
)
So I generally agree.
Okay, now that all that's out of the way...you wanna go throw
eggs at the people who liked Storyteller and LMPTM? =)
Ah...another person who isn't in love with these two episodes?
Nice to know I'm not alone on that one.
[> [> [> Re: The ATPo
consensus on the five worst episodes: -- Cactus Watcher, 20:48:45
09/15/03 Mon
In no particular order
Teacher's Pet
Bad Eggs
Where the Wild Things Are
I Was Made to Love You
Doublemeat Palace
I've always liked Beer Bad, and I think Wrecked is often unfairly
maligned. I have no problem with Riley or Sam so As You Were doesn't
seem especially bad to me.
But, most people's 'turkey' lists have plenty of eps I wouldn't
bother defending.
[> Odd choices -- Valheru,
13:39:46 09/15/03 Mon
I mostly agree with the top 20, though there are some quibbles.
"Surprise" at #7 is a little high, as is "WML2"
at #9. And I think "Passion" deserves a higher placement.
Looking at the entire 144 episode list, sometimes I have to wonder
about whoever made it (I don't have the issue, but I'd guess that
this isn't a list-by-committee, rather one individual's list).
More surprises:
"Primeval" at #21. A good episode, but not that
good, especially considering that it's 3 places higher than...
..."The Gift" at #24. Even if I ignore that it's in
the top 10 of my personal favorites, I would wager that 90% of
fans would at least place it in the top 20.
"Buffy vs. Dracula" at #26. Most people hate this episode,
but even those who like it (such as myself) would be hard-pressed
to put it this high.
"CWDP" at #39. Now I can understand that its subtle
format and Xanderlessness might be too radical for some people.
Still, placing it between "Spiral" (#38) and "Wrecked"
(#40) is just...bizarre.
Speaking of "Wrecked", I'm sure more than a few people
will write in to SFX demanding their heads for not placing it
in the bottom 10.
"The Yoko Factor" at #41. Don't really understand how
it can be 20 places lower than "Primeval". I mean, I
would think that if you prefer "Primeval", you'd really
prefer it and put "TYF" at #120 or something. But if
you sorta like them both, I'd figure them to be closer together
in the rankings.
"Normal Again" (#46) and "Something Blue"
(#51), top 10-ers on many fans' lists, will upset many on their
low placement, especially in light of...
...the generally hated trio of "Him", "As You Were",
and "Bad Eggs" at #53, #54, and #55 respectively.
"Seeing Red" (#58) is right between "The Harvest"
(#57) and "WTTH" (#59). Whether that speaks highly of
"Seeing Red" or lowly of the premiere two-parter is
up to personal interpretation. But there is definitely some irony
there somewhere.
"Amends" at #79. I'll go out on a limb here and guess
that the list-maker thought the Miracle Snow was too miraculous.
Or they hate Broody!Angel.
Okay, "Lie to Me" at #102 is where I draw the line.
You're allowed to hate the episode (though even that gives me
pause), but hate it nearly twice as much as "Bad Eggs"
and "As You Were"? Grr.
"Bad Girls" is #81, yet "Consequences" is
#103. Yet another strange disparity between two-parter episodes.
Another few head-scratchers: "Pangs" at #122, "Checkpoint"
at #123, and "Family" at #128. I doubt that any of these
are going to be on many Top 10 lists (though they'll probably
be many top 20s), but how many Bottom 25 lists are they on?
"Doomed" (#133), "Anne" (#137), and "Gingerbread"
(#142) aren't my favorite episodes by any stretch, but they don't
deserve to be this low. Especially "Gingerbread", 2
away from being THE WORST--really, even if you hate "Gingerbread",
there have got to be more than 2 episodes worse.
IMO, the greatest error is "Fear, Itself" at #131. At
least 100 places too low.
As for the list overall, while I disagree with most of it (and
in many cases, severely), I find myself wondering more about this
person's criteria of personal taste and preferences. Not that
I think someone should like the same episodes as I do, or that
they should think two episodes are as similar as I do, but you'd
think that some pattern would emerge. Like "LMTPM
#22? Must be a Spike fan!", except to find "Beneath
You" at #88, "Crush" at #91, and "Intervention"
at #110.
Another example of strange (mis)connections: "What's My Line,
Part II" is at #9 (unusually high, as I don't think I've
ever seen it in a Top 10 list before) and "What's My Line,
Part I" is at #25. But take the major elements of "WML"
and find other episodes that explore them and you'll see them
at the bottom of the list...
Buffy/Angel "should we or shouldn't we?" romance
- Yes, the episodes in S1/S2 that mirror this ("Surprise"
and "Angel") are high, but the episodes in S3 ("Revelations"
and "Amends") are in the Bottom 3rd of the list.
Kittenish Angel - Again, "Amends" is #79.
Spike and Dru madness! - "School Hard" isn't
extremely high (#35) and "Lie to Me" is #102.
Two Slayers - "Bad Girls"/"Consequences"
have a median rank of #90.
Xander/Cordy wackiness - And yet "BB&B" is
lower ranked than "WML".
So what's left? What could it be about "WML" that this
list-maker likes so much to rank it so high? Again, shouldn't
a pattern emerge somewhere? I don't want to seem like I'm attacking
this person (though you wouldn't know it by the amount of typing
I've put into this post), but this list doesn't look like it was
put together by a very trustworthy reviewer. Which wouldn't matter
if this was just some guy on the Internet, but since he/she works
for a somewhat-repuatable sci-fi magazine, I would expect to see
the list reflect a more...mainstream opinion.
[> [> Re: Odd choices
-- RJA, 14:06:17 09/15/03 Mon
I agree with some of what you say, yet not everything. While Lie
To Me is way too low, I think that you seem to be viewing the
list after 50 or so as a 'worst of' list. You say that this indicates
the review hates it two times as much as he hates As You Were,
but its equally as possible he just likes As You Were two times
more than Lie to Me (which, given his blurb, is likely).
Again, with Bad Girls and Consequences, just because they are
a two parter, there is no guarantee that one should be placed
accordingly with the other. The episodes have to be judged on
their own to an extent. Consequences cant coast on the tails of
Bad Girls, it has to stand in uts own right (and I've seen reputable
reviewers say that Consequences makes Bad Girls look bad such
is the mess of it).
Wrecked and Smashed are ostensibly a two part episode, yet I'm
sure few would rank them together (although I for one actually
think Wrecked deserved its ranking).
I'm not sure that one should try to find a personal taste within
the list (although s/he does seem to like Xander). He could be
one of the many viewers who don't define themselves by a particular
plot/character/ship, but takes each episode as they find it. Hence
they can enjoy Whats My Line without being a Bangel and so on.
I also don't think that the list should in any way reflect a mainstream
view. That's not the point of the lists. The only way to ensure
that would be for the readers to contribute, and even then it
would be subjective to an extent. But within a magazine, it can
only ever be a subjective personal list. All these things are
- and theyre not there to be the definitive word on the subject,
but to inspire the fans to disagree, to come up with choices of
their own. All of which will appear as crazy to others as parts
of this list do to us.
The rankings do appear to be a collective editorial decision though,
since every season is assessed by different writers.
[> [> [> Re: My POV
-- Brian, 15:19:06 09/15/03 Mon
I believe that in every Buffy episode there are always some "diamonds
in the rough" that justify watching that certain episode.
However, there are only two that I will turn away from the TV
and not watch: Ted and Gingerbread.
For some reason they tigger some buried uneasiness in my psyche.
Perhaps it is that "my parent really is a psycho" fear.
[> [> [> [> Re:
My POV -- RJA, 15:51:02 09/15/03 Mon
I completely agree! I wouldnt place either of these episodes as
the worst (in terms of quality), but theyre definitely my least
liked episodes.
For some reason, both episodes make me slightly nauseous. As you
say, its probably the fear of parents as pyscho.
[> [> [> Editorial
Integrity -- Valheru, 17:39:45 09/15/03 Mon
I also don't think that the list should in any way reflect
a mainstream view. That's not the point of the lists. The only
way to ensure that would be for the readers to contribute, and
even then it would be subjective to an extent. But within a magazine,
it can only ever be a subjective personal list. All these things
are - and theyre not there to be the definitive word on the subject,
but to inspire the fans to disagree, to come up with choices of
their own. All of which will appear as crazy to others as parts
of this list do to us.
Now see, I think that of any list, a major magazine's list should
be as mainstream as possible. Any Buffy fan can (and probably
has) rank all 144 episodes however way they want to. I can go
to pretty much any BtVS message board and find dozens of such
lists, done by everyone from 12 year old girls to 80 year old
English professors. But this guy got paid for it.
SFX is in the business of making money by appealing to a certain
market, the sci-fi/fantasy/horror genre in this case. They do
this by saying, basically, "You won't find any other magazine
that knows the quality of this genre better than us." A magazine
that keeps extolling the greatness of "Howard the Duck"
isn't going to appeal to a great many people. You aren't going
to see very many "Star Trek" magazines doing articles
about the greatness of "Spock's Brain". Magazines survive
by delivering on the promise that they have the same ideas as
their readers.
Say I've never seen BtVS. I'm reading SFX and I think, "I
might like this little Vampire Slayer show." And lo! I find
a list telling me the best episodes to watch. But suppose that
SFX's list has "Beer Bad", "As You Were",
and "I Robot, You Jane" as the Top 3 episodes. So I
get these episodes from a friend and start watching. Chances are,
I'm not going to like this show at all. So the next time I see
SFX on the newsstand, I might think, "I'm not getting that
stupid magazine. It thinks that crappy Buffy show is great."
SFX doesn't want that. It wants people to read their magazine
and go, "Yeah! I thought that exact same thing! SFX roolz!"
So when they print a list of the best BtVS episodes, they're looking
for the surest-bet episodes of the series.
I like "WLM". I really do. But I have a pretty good
sense that most people don't like it better than "The Gift",
and definitely not 7 (average between the two parts) places better.
Not many BtVS fans are going to say that "Primeval"
is 19 places better than "CWDP". And there aren't a
whole lot of people who would think "Lie to Me" is #102,
or that "As You Were" is better than 90 other episodes.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Editorial Integrity -- RJA, 18:13:09 09/15/03 Mon
I like "WLM". I really do. But I have a pretty good
sense that most people don't like it better than "The Gift",
and definitely not 7 (average between the two parts) places better.
Not many BtVS fans are going to say that "Primeval"
is 19 places better than "CWDP". And there aren't a
whole lot of people who would think "Lie to Me" is #102,
or that "As You Were" is better than 90 other episodes.
I very much agree, I think there are some huge oddities within
the list, and some placements which I cant understand. But the
casual viewer, or someone who hasn't seen Buffy before wont be
checking those (one could also argue they wouldn't be buying the
special edition in the first place). But if they did happen to
buy it, and wanted a starting point, that they get pointed to
Hush, OMWF, Restless, Surprise, Innocence, Becoming, Graduation
Day, Passion, Chosen and all suggests that SFX aren't at all shoddy
in their positions. They wont be looking at number 56 and wondering
why it was placed so high and so on. They want to know what the
best episodes are, and with a few exceptions (HLOD I'm looking
at you...), the top 20 is a good primer and assessment of the
best episodes.
If SFX had Beer Bad, As You Were and and so on as the best episodes,
then yes, there would be problems. But casual/new viewers will
only want to know the top episodes, which SFX have largely got
correct. Anything after that is purely subjective - of interest
only to the hardened fans who would only ever place their own
rankings first.
Its also worth noting that in the special edition, they don't
have a summarising list of all the rankings. They put the episodes
by season, and the reader has to work out the order themselves.
[> [> [> Re: Odd choices
-- sdev, 19:45:22 09/15/03 Mon
The rankings do appear to be a collective editorial decision
though, since every season is assessed by different writers.
How can you have any consistency, as Valerhu comments on the lack
thereof, when different people are picking each season?
Also I just noticed Superstar at 17. Please!
[> [> [> [> Re:
Odd choices -- RJA, 11:32:16 09/16/03 Tue
Each season has a different writer summarising the good and bad
points of each episode within that season. However, I would imagine
that it was a collective decision in terms of ranking
[> [> WML2 had a good
fight scene-possible reason? -- sdev, 19:26:41 09/15/03
Mon
[> what? conversations w/dead
people didn't make the top 20? & harsh light of day did? --
anom, 20:22:55 09/15/03 Mon
And Anne, All the Way, Life Serial (mummy hand!), Gingerbread
(the whole real-basis-for-Hansel-&-Gretel idea! "let's
have lunch sometime soon, after we incinerate our children! "MOO"!),
& Hell's Bells were in the bottom 10?
I don't have time to go into more detail, but I'm sure it's already
done in some of the other posts I don't have time to read either.
But, Kitkat, I would like to see SFX's justification for excluding
CWDP from the top 20. (BTW, welcome back--hope you're able to
stick around!)
[> [> Top and bottom
15 from the Council of Watchers site, for comparison -- OnM,
07:24:24 09/16/03 Tue
These lists are compiled by voting members only, and are built
up over a long period of time-- the database is automatically
adjusted whenever a new vote comes in. You can visit the site
for full details. ( www.protej.com/buffy/ )
Top o' the line:
1. Becoming Part Two 9.362
2. Once More, With Feeling 9.234
3. Passion 9.081
4. Innocence 9.081
5. The Body 9.075
6. Becoming Part One 9.034
7. Conversations with Dead People 9.000
8. Chosen 8.909
9. Selfless 8.870
10. The Wish 8.806
11. Hush 8.769
12. Doppelgängland 8.752
13. The Gift 8.698
14. Fool for Love 8.679
15. Lovers Walk 8.678
...and the lowest ranked:
130. Doomed 6.170
131. Killed by Death 6.050
132. Into the Woods 6.045
133. Dead Man's Party 6.040
134. Some Assembly Required 5.934
135. Go Fish 5.800
136. I Robot, You Jane 5.626
137. Inca Mummy Girl 5.614
138. Doublemeat Palace 5.562
139. Bad Eggs 5.472
140. Reptile Boy 5.367
141. Goodbye Iowa 5.352
142. Teacher's Pet 5.335
143. Beer Bad 4.945
144. Where the Wild Things Are 4.394
I condensed this info from the database tables, but I left the
rating number in. The scale is the usual 0 to 10. Note that
you have to go the whole way down to #143 to get below 5.000,
which one reasonably might assume represents 'average', neither
exceptionally good or bad.
Two brief comments-- I love Anne, it's in my personal top
10, so I am always at a loss to understand why it typically ends
up near the bottom of the list. It's at #110 with a rating of
7.009 on the CoW list, low but still way higher than on a lot
of other lists I've seen.
I'd place Beer Bad higher also, although not sure exactly
where, maybe around a 6.0 or 6.2. I enjoyed it in general, but
"Don't make cave-Slayer angry" and the fact that Buffy
was still a hero even in Cro-Magnon form says a lot, don't you
think? Also liked the name they chose for the magic beer, and
of course "No Thomas Aquinas... etc."
Channeling Earl when I say, "Take it and amble..."
[> [> [> What's wrong
with Anne? -- dmw, 06:58:53 09/17/03 Wed
There's a lot I like about Anne, especially the parts with how
both Buffy and the Scoobies deal without the other person/group.
However, introducing the devils of this episode along with Hell
and then hand-waving it away so easily was annoying and made it
hard to maintain suspension of disbelief, so it doesn't make it
to my top episodes. It's not one of my bottom 20 either.
[> [> [> [> Wondering
if anyone else has noticed the thematic similarity... -- OnM,
12:23:45 09/17/03 Wed
... between the scene in Anne where:
Buffy, who is looking very beaten down and more than somewhat
'out of it' becomes steadily angrier and angrier as the demons
ask "Who are you?" and then kill anyone who doesn't
respond with the only 'acceptable' word, "Nobody".
Demon: "Who are you?"
Buffy: (perkily) "Why, I'm Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. And
you?"
Buffy then proceeds to beat the living crap out of the demons,
and sucessfully escapes with a bunch of other previously beaten-down
youth.
Then, in Chosen, we have the scene with the FE, after Buffy
has been 'mortally' wounded:
First Evil: Ooh! Ow! Mommy! This mortal wound is all itchy!
(leans in) You pulled a nice trick. Hey, you came pretty close
to smacking me down! What more do you want?
Buffy slowly pushes herself up on her hands, and stares back at
The First (who looks just like herself, of course), and with a
gaze that could melt diamonds, replies...
Buffy: I want you... to get out of my face!
The First looks suddenly very worried, as it should. The tide
suddenly turns, and the FE is apparently fresh out of lawyers,
guns and money.
So, considering, was dispatching the demons in Anne as
difficult to accept as what happened in Chosen?
(Of course, some folks have problems with exactly that, so I guess
YMMV. I loved 'em both.)
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Wondering if anyone else has noticed the thematic similarity...
-- dmw, 12:38:56 09/17/03 Wed
It wasn't really that aspect that bothered me; it was the re-introduction
of a big setting element--Hell--and then handwaving it away. Closing
Hell was a big deal in the previous and season-ending episode
(Becoming 2) and now in Anne it's dealt with as MotW??
[> [> [> [> [>
[> It depends if it was Hell or hell -- RJA, 12:47:43
09/17/03 Wed
If there is only one hell in the Buffyverse, then huge deal. However,
if Buffy ended up in a hell dimension, then its not as important
(although still significant within the episode).
Opening the Acathla dimension would be fatal to the world, because,
like what happened in The Gift, because the hell dimension would
bleed into the world as we know it. However, one could assume
that opening a portal into other hell dimensions wouldnt work
in the same way.
So as a portal into Quortoth (described as a hell dimension) didnt
effect our world, so Buffy can venture into another hell dimension
without it being as serious as Acathla.
I think the references to 'Hell' in the show is that generally
people growing up in a Judeo-Christian environment or society
would refer to their experiences in terms that everyone understand.
So Buffy was in something like heaven, and Angel considered himself
as in Hell. That doesnt mean that this is what the places actually
were.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> And it wasn't even a complete victory -- Finn
Mac Cool, 14:24:42 09/17/03 Wed
Many people were still left in the demon factory, and there's
no guarantee that was the only such portal, or that it could never
be reopened.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: And it wasn't even a complete victory
-- dmw, 16:36:53 09/17/03 Wed
I guess I'm not explaining myself well because that's what bothers
me: it's still out there but it's considered resolved as Buffy
never mentions it again. I can buy Buffy escaping as she did;
it's the easy and complete disappearance of it from the series
afterwards that bothers me.
As for Quartoth, not only did it come on another show several
years later so it didn't affect my impression of Anne as I saw
it, but it follows the later interpretation of demons as other
races of sentient beings who are more or less humans with slight
differences while Anne follows the classic model of demons as
innately malevolent beings who devote their existence to corrupting
or tricking humans. In other words, it feels much less Hell, not
another earthlike world like Quartoth. Quartoth feels like a SF
story where the heroes went through an FTL gate to get to another
planet, whereas Anne feels like a fantasy story drawing on Christian
myth.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Minor fix -- dmw, 16:40:05 09/17/03
Wed
In other words, it feels much less Hell
Some words got eaten. This should be:
In other words, the Hell in Anne feels like Hell instead of feeling
like another earthlike world like Quartoth.
I also wanted to note that we've discussed the different ways
of dealing with demons--mythical versus people who look different--here
before, but I forget the thread name.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Anne: Christian 'opiate' or Marxist
doctrine? Discuss (5,000 words or less) -- Celebaelin, 18:14:05
09/17/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> yeah, i'd wondered about that! -- anom,
08:51:06 09/18/03 Thu
As far as I could tell, only the newest batch of slaves were liberated.
There must've been a whole lot more aging humans left behind.
And it didn't look as though the entire operation was destroyed,
unless I missed something.
BTW, was it ever clear what kind of work the demons had the enslaved
humans doing? Or does it even matter, if it's a metaphor?
[> [> [> Re: Top and
bottom 15 from the Council of Watchers site, for comparison
-- Claudia, 14:00:02 09/17/03 Wed
It's too bad that they ranked "Becoming, Part 2" first
- especially over "Fool For Love". But . . . I guess
that is their opinion.
[> Wrecked over Tabula Rasa?
(including the full list) -- pellenaka, 03:12:02 09/16/03
Tue
That's sacrilegious.
And all those episode over Life Serial. This is too much.
On the other hand, Storyteller is at #34 so I gues I can't complain.
Here is the full list, btw.
144. Beer Bad.
143. Hell's Bells.
142. Gingerbread.
141. Gone.
140. Reptile Boy.
139. Life Serial.
138. All The Way.
137. Anne.
136. Go Fish.
135. Dead Man's Party.
134. Some Assembly Required.
133. Doomed.
132. Doublemeat Palace.
131. Fear, Itself.
130. I Robot, You Jane.
129. Never Kill A Boy On The First Date.
128. Family.
127. First Date.
126. I Was Made To Love You.
125. Out Of Mind, Out Of Sight.
124. Beauty And The Beasts.
123. Checkpoint.
122. Pangs.
121. Ted.
120. Touched.
119. Where The Wild Things Are.
118. The Witch.
117. The Weight Of The World.
116. After Life.
115. Empty Places.
114. Nightmares.
113. Living Conditions.
112. Out Of My Mind.
111. No Place Like Home.
110. Intervention.
109. Older And Far Away.
108. When She Was Bad.
107. Faith, Hope And Trick.
106. Killed By Death.
105. Inca Mummy Girl.
104. Never Leave Me.
103. Consequences.
102. Lie To Me.
101. Shadow.
100. Get It Done.
99. The Puppet Show.
98. Homecoming.
97. Helpless.
96. Teacher's Pet.
95. Choices.
94. Revelations.
93. The Dark Age.
92. Potential.
91. Crush.
90. Band Candy.
89. Blood Ties.
88. Beneath You.
87. Entropy.
86. Bargaining (part 2).
85. Bring On The Night.
84. Forever.
83. Flooded.
82. Bargaining (part 1).
81. Bad Girls.
80. Dead Things.
79. Amends.
78. Lessons.
77. Phases.
76. Listening To Fear.
75. Tough Love.
74. Goodbye Iowa.
73. The Freshman.
72. I Only Have Eyes For You.
71. Showtime.
70. The I In Team.
69. The Killer In Me.
68. Smashed.
67. Help.
66. New Moon Rising.
65. Same Time, Same Place.
64. The Prom.
63. This Year's Girl.
62. The Replacement.
61. The Pack.
60. The Initiative.
59. Welcome To The Hellmouth.
58. Seeing Red.
57. The Harvest.
56. Two To Go.
55. Bad Eggs.
54. As You Were.
53. Him.
52. Into The Woods.
51. Something Blue.
50. Triangle.
49. Real Me.
48. Sleeper.
47. Grave.
46. Normal Again.
45. A New Man.
44. Halloween.
43. Tabula Rasa.
42. Dirty Girls.
41. The Yoko Factor.
40. Wrecked.
39. Conversations With Dead People.
38. Spiral.
37. End Of Days.
36. Enemies.
35. School Hard.
34. Storyteller.
33. Who Are You?
32. Wild At Heart.
31. Doppelgangland.
30. Bewitched, Bothered And Bewildered.
29. Lover's Walk.
28. The Wish.
27. Villains.
26. Buffy Vs.Dracula.
25. What's My Line (part 1).
24. The Gift.
23. Angel.
22. Lies My Parents Told Me.
21. Primeval.
20. Passion.
19. Prophecy Girl.
18. Selfless.
17. Superstar.
16. The Harsh Light Of Day.
15. Earshot.
14. The Zeppo.
13. Becoming (part 1).
12. Graduation Day (part 1).
11. Graduation Day (part 2).
10. Fool For Love.
9. What's My Line (part 2).
8. Chosen.
7. Surprise.
6. Becoming (part 2).
5. Innocence.
4. The Body.
3. Restless.
2. Once More, With Feeling.
1. Hush.
[> [> Re: Wrecked over
Tabula Rasa? (including the full list) -- lynx, 00:36:51
09/18/03 Thu
Doublemeat Palace.
bottom 10 in no particular order
I Robot, You Jane.
Go Fish.
All The Way.
Ted.
Living Conditions.
Teacher's Pet.
Band Candy.
As You Were.
Him.
[> Re: Gingerbread????
-- Vegeta, 09:59:23 09/16/03 Tue
IMHO Gingerbread has no business in the bottom 10 episodes! Now
don't fet me wrong I don't think it should be in the top 20, but
I'd put it in the top 50. That episode has some truly hysterical
parts...
Cordelia asking Giles how many times he's been knocked out.
Buffy staking the demon with the post she was tied to and then
asking if she got it.
Cordelia spraying down the crowd (enjoyably) instead of putting
out the flames.
All good stuff, I really can't see what is awful about that episode.
Although I can agree the "Go Fish" and "Some assembly
required" deserve to be near the bottom. I would also add
"Where the wild things are (S4)" and "The Pack
(S1)" to the bottom 10.
[> Before this thread disappears
-- Celebaelin, 04:16:56 09/17/03 Wed
Here are the nominations based on the above to date
RUNNING TOTALS
Where the Wild Things Are (10)
As You Were (8)
Bad Eggs (6)
Doublemeat Palace (5)
Beer Bad (4)
I Was Made To Love You (3)
Ted (3)
Gingerbread (3)
Teachers Pet (3)
Into the Woods (3)
Go Fish (3)
Wrecked (2)
I Robot, You Jane (2)
Some Assembly Required (2)
Bar (1)
[> [> My Worst Five
-- dmw, 07:28:37 09/17/03 Wed
From worst to just really bad:
1. Wrecked
2. Grave
3. Two to Go
4. Smashed
5. Him
As you can see, junkie Willow didn't go over very well for me
and I found the yellow crayon speech to be one of the most cringe
inducing moments ever. Of the bad ones listed, the only one I
liked was IRYJ, as it had some cool ideas, though the robot Moloch
wasn't one of them.
[> [> So WTWA and AYW
are leading the pack on Worst? I'll go with that ;-) -- s'kat,
07:49:07 09/17/03 Wed
Of course if you REALLY want to be accurate, someone should go
into the archives and hunt other threads we've done on this topic
to get people who choose not to chime in this round's votes. ;-)
(Don't look at me, wayyy too much work. ) ;-)
But if I were to guess? I'd say WTWA and AYW lead the vote back
in the spring too when more people voted. (Actually She from ATS
won...at that point.)
Interesting since ME seems to think the episode fans like the
least is Beer Bad - it's the only one they've ever copped to being
truly bad in interviews - see David Solomon's interview in Offical
Buffy Magazine #9 - I think.
He refers to Joss Whedon stating that he tried to improve Beer
Bad but all he managed to do was make it funnier.
(It was one of Solomon's solo directing efforts). Whedon also
refers to it in his S4 DVD interview, stating well, there's one
episode that did not work the way we wanted and was horrible.
(We thought he meant WTWA, when in truth? Beer Bad...now is it
just a coincidence that both episodes were written by Tracey Forbes?
And Tracey Forbes left after WTWA?)
sk
[> [> [> I think...
-- Tchaikovsky, 02:05:20 09/18/03 Thu
That that comment from Joss was a playful Rorschach test. He wrote
something like: 'See 21 great episodes in all their glory, and
that other one we don't talk about'. I think he was being slightly
mischievous with elements of the fanbase who would cotton on to
it as proof that 'Beer Bad'/'Where The Wild Things Are'/'Primeval'/'Restless'
was an episode he didn't like.
TCH
[> [> [> [> I used
to think the same, except -- s'kat, 10:57:20 09/18/03 Thu
When I read the Solomon interview where the director more or less
states - Whedon was upset b/c he couldn't fix Beer Bad. He re-worked
and re-worked it and all he did he felt was make it worse or create
more jokes. (This may explain why parts of the episode make me
giggle, when they shouldn't.)
I know he considers Restless one of his best efforts although
he's snarky with some of the fanbase for hating it. (Don't get
that personally since Restless is in my top ten and was my favorite
episode of S4, but I like stream-of-conscious highly metaphorical
stuff, as long as it's not too obvious). Primeval - they also
seem to feel proud of.
And WTWA? Never seen the writers comment negatively on it.
So...
[> [> [> [> [>
I thought dumping Tracey Forbes was enough of a negative comment
from ME. -- cjl, 11:28:59 09/18/03 Thu
Although, strangely enough, Ms. Forbes pops up on DVD--big as
life, and twice as sunny--to comment on "Something Blue"
for the Buffy S4 Season Review. "Amicable" parting?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> They have commentary on Something Blue?? -- s'kat,
15:34:28 09/18/03 Thu
Whoa. Okay...note to self, when and if I ever can afford the DVD
player, I am getting S4 DVD. I just have to listen to the Something
Blue and Wild at Heart Commentaries.
Probably was an amicable parting - I don't think she was long
term, more freelance. From what I've read several writers freelance
on these network shows without signing contracts. Ty King did.
Ryan Murphy (sp?) who created the Sheild did. And Tracey Forbes
probably did the same thing.
Whedon started that way on Roseanne. They all dream of getting
their own gig as show-runner or head-writer or co-executive producer
b/c then they control the story arcs as opposed to being at the
mercy of someone else, I think.
Makes sense. How much you want to bet the stories Forbes wrote
weren't Forbes' ideas but Whedon's? She was just the hired gun.
;-) (OTOH you got to see the commentary, I didn't, so maybe I'm
wrong???)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Unfortunately, Something Blue didn't have its own
commentary. -- cjl, 17:08:36 09/18/03 Thu
Tracey Forbes was part of the big "Story of Season 4"
featurette on disc 6 (?). A lot of the material in the featurette
was old news (Joss talking about Hush and Restless), but there
was the occasional fresh nugget (i.e., Ms. Forbes).
Current board
| More September 2003